Forums: Climbing Disciplines: Trad Climbing: Re: [jt512] Possible legal action against CCH Inc.: Edit Log




ja1484


Jun 20, 2007, 6:04 PM

Views: 4043

Registered: Aug 11, 2006
Posts: 1935

Re: [jt512] Possible legal action against CCH Inc.
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  

jt512 wrote:
papounet wrote:
jt512 wrote:
We noted that the probability of a -19 SD event is about 1 / 10^80. Now, the Big Bang is estimated to have occurred 13.7 billion years ago. Now, even if 1 billion cams were produced every second since the Big Bang until now, "only" about 10^25 cams will have been produced. This is still 55 orders of magnitude less than the number of cams needed for us to expect to produce a single cam that would fail at -19 SD. So, since even on a cosmologic time scale, "eventually" no cam could fail at such a low load, it is certain that on a human time scale, no cam could fail.

In reply to:
If you crunch the numbers, it WILL happen to SOMEONE, guaranteed.

Well, I just did crunch them, and we saw that no, it will never happen to someone, guaranteed.

Conclusion: Under realistic assumptions, it is statistically impossible for a cam belonging to a population purported to have a 3-sigma breaking strength of 10 kN to break at 2 kN under normal use.

Jay

Hmm, because it is stats means no absolute should be used. the fact that the probabilty of a cam belonging to a population which has a 3signam breaking strength or 10 kN +/- 1.5kn failing a -19SD is absurdly low does not say it has not yet occured or it won't occur in our lifetime. it just extremely unlikely to happen.

No, please consider the magnitude of the number, which I have related to both the age of the Universe and the number of atoms in the Universe. This probability is incomprehensibly small. It is so small that we can say with virtual certainty that no event with that probability will occur on Earth during our lifetime.

Jay


Virtual certainty is a different thing from certainty last time I checked...

Edit: And "incomprehensibly small" is being generous. Incomprehensibly, unfathomably, ridiculously, flabbergastingly, awe-inspiringly small is probably more accurate.


(This post was edited by ja1484 on Jun 20, 2007, 6:08 PM)



Edit Log:
Post edited by ja1484 () on Jun 20, 2007, 6:06 PM
Post edited by ja1484 () on Jun 20, 2007, 6:08 PM


Search for (options)

Log In:

Username:
Password: Remember me:

Go Register
Go Lost Password?