AtWar use of the probabilities.

Since someone serious need them, I will clarify how to have a right use of probabilities.

I find that in AW, at least in the forums, we have a lack of clarification when expressing a casuality. Feel free to post and judge this as much as you want, since there is not any clear date about how much % the probabilities mean.

Terminology that express a probability.

First of all, there is no word for describe an exact 100%.

"~" mean "average", an extimation between all the values that are choosen.

"Perfect" mean 100% rounded up from ~99.99%. Is the terminology that we have more near (but not) 100%. Source: School's degree.

"Impossible" mean ~98%, since nothing is impossible in this life. Source: Logic.

"Excelent" mean ~90%. Source: School's degree.

"Very good" mean ~85%. Source: School's degree.

"Good" mean ~80%. Source: School's degree.

"Enough" mean ~70%. Source: School's degree.

" Usual, likely, common" mean ~60%. Source: My match book of 6th.**

"Half of the times" mean ~50%. Source: My match book of 6th**

"Not usual, Not likely, not common" mean ~40%. Source: logic.*

"Strange" mean ~10%. Source: Unknow ***

" Rare" mean about ~5%. Source: Unknow ***

"Never, no chance, not happening" mean 0%, rounded up from 0.00~1%. Is the terminology that we have more near ( but not) 0%. Source: Diccionary.


"Lower than" mean that one value have less % than another value. Two or more values are needen. Source: diccionary.

"More/higher than" mean that one value have more % than another value. Two or more values are needen. Source: diccionary.

" Most" mean than one chase have more % than another chase. Only 1 value is needen, the other values are obvious. Source: Diccionary.

"Generally" is a terminology based on probabilities. When it is not specified, it mean the same as usual.

* = If usual mean 60%, Not usual can, but not guaranteed, to mean 40%.

** = I saw them in my book of 6th grade. I cannot get the source, so feel free to trust it or no.

*** = I saw them somewhere, but I dont remember when. Feel free to trust or not.

How probabilities works?

When a number is express in %, his max capacity is 100% unless specified. Taking the argument:

"only ~5% of the people that get a gunshot to the head survive"

Source: "The American Association of Neurological Surgeons." AANS. N.p., n.d. Web. 08 Nov. 2014."

It have 3 means:

The ~5% mean that there is a max capacity of 100%.
The ~5% mean ~ 5 / 100. Using the theory of proportions, it is 0.05 of 1.
The ~5% mean " For every 100 people, only an average of 5 people will survive".

When to use probability?

You should use them when you are stating somenthing, clarificating the factors which can greatly alterate the data, and pointing the existance of those who have a small impact.

Example of bad usage:

1)The someone: High ranks away beat lowranks.
clarification: This is not true if the high rank have a poor development, or is another person playing in his account.

2) The someone: High rank away beat low rank unless the high rank have poor development (noob).
Clarification: The high rank can have a good development, but the low rank can be outstanding too.

3) The someone: High rank away beat low rank unless the high rank is a noob or the lowrank have a better development.
Clarification: The lowrank can have equal development but better pick, and therefore, advantage.

4) The someone: A profesional high rank as turkey will away beat a low rank as cyprus unless the high rank is a noob or the low rank have a better development.
Clarificaition: The high rank can disconect, or have an emergency, or any other accident that can alterate his normal development ( i.e: sick, killed, disturbed, mentally alterated).

5) The someone: A profesional high rank as turkey will away beat a low rank as cyprus unless the high rank is a noob, the low rank have a better development or the high rank have any kind of problem that can alterate his common gameplay.
Clarification: The low rank can posess a bug which makes his units unbeatable.

6.A) The someone: In a normal gameplay, a profesional high rank as turkey will away beat a low rank as cyprus unless the high rank is a noob, the low rank have better development, the high rank have any kind of problem that alterate his gameplay.
Clarification: What does normal mean? People can have different standart about the word. This is therefore, a dead end, and the start of another infinite probability funtion.

6.B) The someone: a profesional high rank as turkey will away beat a low rank as cyprus unless the high rank is a noob, the low rank have better development, the high rank have any kind of problem that alterate his gameplay, or the low rank have access to a bug which potencially alterate the results of the battle mechanics.
Clarification: A moderator can kick you from the game.

Future clarification:

Servers can disconect. You can miss your moves. Game can crash. You can have electrical problems. ect...

Therefore, is necesary, for avoid this kind of infinite discussions, to express the existance of possibilities. A correct statement would be:

Even though we cannot calculate how exact those factors can represent a great or minimal instance in the results, the correct is to leave "emply space", or % of probability that are not used but can be filled up by the minimal casualties.

7) Conclusion: A profesional high rank as turkey is likely to beat a low rank as cyprus. (Is likely = ~60%)

Lol

>nothing is impossible

What happens when a unstoppable object, collides with a unmovable object? Oh
yeah.... Its impossible for both to exist in the same universe.

1 + 1 = 3 < really? Is it possible for it to be 3?

Is it possible for a object to be a circle and a square at the same time?

Is it possible to fall upwards?

Is it possible for a object to exist at the same time it doesn't?

Your logic is flawed, i think that you lack the english skills to understand the concept of impossible.

>good
>enough
>very good
>most
>rare
>unusual

Are concepts that only work when compared to other "stuff"
For some people a 50% is enough, for some people 70% is bad, etc.
Getting 1% of a multi billion company its very good to some people.

Trying to impose your concepts of words to other people, only shows your ignorance.

Think you need an intervention man.

Ok

Escrito por Tundy, 10.11.2014 at 10:20

What happens when a unstoppable object, collides with a unmovable object? Oh
yeah.... Its impossible for both to exist in the same universe.

Clarification: Easy, check this: A A

Both A are the same object on another part of the space. Since there was no specification about the definition of object, my statement is true.

Clarification 2: The letter "A" exist in your keyboard and mine.

Conclusion: You are wrong.

Escrito por Tundy, 10.11.2014 at 10:20

1 + 1 = 3 < really? Is it possible for it to be 3?

Clarification: U didnt made any clarification. This is as easy as write it:

1 + 1 = 3

done, since we are not following any kind of mathematical clarification.

Conclusion: You are wrong.

Escrito por Tundy, 10.11.2014 at 10:20

Is it possible for a object to be a circle and a square at the same time?

Clarification: Sure,



What is this object? Is one object conformed by an square outside and a circle inside. Therefore, it is an square outside but also an circle in one of his part (inside).

Done, since you never specify any kind of logic to follow.

Conclusion: You are wrong.

Escrito por Tundy, 10.11.2014 at 10:20

Is it possible to fall upwards?

Clarification: Sure, let go to the moon where there is no "upwards" definition.
Clarification: Give me a jetpack or a weapon that disable gravity in one specific part.

Conclusion: You are wrong.

Escrito por Tundy, 10.11.2014 at 10:20

Is it possible for a object to exist at the same time it doesn't?

The "nothing" exist at the same time it doesn't. Same with 0 / 0 , 3 / 0 , infinite / 0 : It exist in the same way it does not.

Conclusion: You are wrong.

And at last,

Escrito por Tundy, 10.11.2014 at 10:20

>nothing is impossible

Do you wonder why one of the definition of "Impossible" mean "extremery hard" in the diccionary? because it is actually possible. GG



Conclusion: You are wrong.

Escrito por clovis1122, 10.11.2014 at 10:50

Ok

Escrito por Tundy, 10.11.2014 at 10:20

What happens when a unstoppable object, collides with a unmovable object? Oh
yeah.... Its impossible for both to exist in the same universe.

Clarification: Easy, check this: A A

Both A are the same object on another part of the space. Since there was no specification about the definition of object, my statement is true.

Clarification 2: The letter "A" exist in your keyboard and mine.

Conclusion: You are wrong.

Escrito por Tundy, 10.11.2014 at 10:20

1 + 1 = 3 < really? Is it possible for it to be 3?

Clarification: U didnt made any clarification. This is as easy as write it:

1 + 1 = 3

done, since we are not following any kind of mathematical clarification.

Conclusion: You are wrong.

Escrito por Tundy, 10.11.2014 at 10:20

Is it possible for a object to be a circle and a square at the same time?

Clarification: Sure,



What is this object? Is one object conformed by an square outside and a circle inside. Therefore, it is an square outside but also an circle in one of his part (inside).

Done, since you never specify any kind of logic to follow.

Conclusion: You are wrong.

Escrito por Tundy, 10.11.2014 at 10:20

Is it possible to fall upwards?

Clarification: Sure, let go to the moon where there is no "upwards" definition.
Clarification: Give me a jetpack or a weapon that disable gravity in one specific part.

Conclusion: You are wrong.

Escrito por Tundy, 10.11.2014 at 10:20

Is it possible for a object to exist at the same time it doesn't?

The "nothing" exist at the same time it doesn't. Same with 0 / 0 , 3 / 0 , infinite / 0 : It exist in the same way it does not.

Conclusion: You are wrong.

And at last,

Escrito por Tundy, 10.11.2014 at 10:20

>nothing is impossible

Do you wonder why one of the definition of "Impossible" mean "extremery hard" in the diccionary? because it is actually possible. GG



Conclusion: You are wrong.

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/impossible

I am starting to think, that you have brain damage.

Escrito por Tundy, 10.11.2014 at 13:28

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/impossible

I am starting to think, that you have brain damage.

Thanks for give a link which you didnt even open - Your own dead. It also various definition of impossible as "Extremery hard".


Which lead us to this:

Escrito por clovis1122, 10.11.2014 at 10:50

Do you wonder why one of the definition of "Impossible" mean "extremery hard" in the diccionary? because it is actually possible. GG



Conclusion: You are wrong.

Escrito por clovis1122, 10.11.2014 at 17:33

Escrito por Tundy, 10.11.2014 at 13:28

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/impossible

I am starting to think, that you have brain damage.

Thanks for give a link which you didnt even open - Your own dead. It also various definition of impossible as "Extremery hard".


Which lead us to this:

Escrito por clovis1122, 10.11.2014 at 10:50

Do you wonder why one of the definition of "Impossible" mean "extremery hard" in the diccionary? because it is actually possible. GG



Conclusion: You are wrong.

You are narrowing the definition to 1 meaning, when in reality its clear that i meant for the thing never to happen.
This is basic English, either you know it, or you don't





"extremely hard" shouldn't be the first thing that comes to your mind when people say the word "Impossible" , the first thing that should come to your mind is "Something that can't be done" and then is up to you to evaluate if the person is exaggerating and it actually means "very hard" or he is being straight forward about it.

You are technically saying "oh tunder, impossible can mean X, therefore i am gonna assume you meant X and therefore you are wrong, even when the word can mean Y and it you meant Y then you are right"

Your responses are only supported by your ignorance.

Escrito por clovis1122, 10.11.2014 at 10:50

Clarification: Easy, check this: A A

Both A are the same object on another part of the space. Since there was no specification about the definition of object, my statement is true.

Clarification 2: The letter "A" exist in your keyboard and mine.

No, you don't even have the brain capacity to understand a simple question
Its logic

Object A can't be stop
Object B can't be moved
its impossible for A and B to exist in the same universe, because A requires that B doesn't exist and B requires that A doesn't exist.
Because If Object A and Object B collide, either object A moves or B stops, If A moves then A wasn't unmovable after all, if B stops then B wasn't unstoppable after all

Escrito por clovis1122, 10.11.2014 at 10:50

Clarification: U didnt made any clarification. This is as easy as write it:

1 + 1 = 3

done, since we are not following any kind of mathematical clarification.

I was clearly following the laws of mathematics.
its impossible for 1+1 to be equal to 3 if it follows the laws of mathematics

Escrito por clovis1122, 10.11.2014 at 10:50

Clarification: Sure,



What is this object? Is one object conformed by an square outside and a circle inside. Therefore, it is an square outside but also an circle in one of his part (inside).

Done, since you never specify any kind of logic to follow.

Are you mentally ill? a figure can't be a square and a circle at the same time. It can be a square inside a circle or a circle inside a square, but its never gonna be a Square-Circle, or whatever you call that nonexistent figure

Escrito por clovis1122, 10.11.2014 at 10:50

Clarification: Sure, let go to the moon where there is no "upwards" definition.
Clarification: Give me a jetpack or a weapon that disable gravity in one specific part.

You are not falling upward with the jetpack and by upward is clear that i meant the opposite of going down. the only reason we "fall" its due to gravity, gravity always attracts us "to the center of gravity earth" <but of course this is a simple way to say it. Gravity is not gonna push you away from earth. if you disable gravity you are not falling at all, without gravity you simple stay in the same place until force is applied to you and you will move for eternity until another force slows you down lol

Escrito por clovis1122, 10.11.2014 at 10:50

The "nothing" exist at the same time it doesn't. Same with 0 / 0 , 3 / 0 , infinite / 0 : It exist in the same way it does not.

Conclusion: You are wrong.

And at last,

Its impossible for a object to exist at the same time it doesn't
don't make me go full Aristotles on you, because if you exist then its impossible for you to not exist.

Escrito por clovis1122, 10.11.2014 at 10:50

Do you wonder why one of the definition of "Impossible" mean "extremery hard" in the diccionary? because it is actually possible. GG

Do you know why people actually use the word impossible to define something that is hard? Because its a exaggeration, it actually means that something can't happen.

Conclusion: Your english skills suck

Escrito por Tundy, 10.11.2014 at 18:04

-clarifycation.

I predicted your result. Remember?

Escrito por clovis1122, 08.11.2014 at 18:16

Well we dont know if in the future this will be possible. Even if you makes all the specification that you want, there is a probability that will never be in your head, or mine, or probably, in nobody's head. Or even more probably, in someone's head that didnt reveal it to the public.

Taken from the other post. What you are doing here is just clarficating your posts and trying to restrict them in orden to add more percent to your results.

In some chases, you had covered the 99.99~9% of the results. This does not mean is impossible at 100%; but impossible in the chase that nobody has proven it to be wrong yet.

Lim = Impossible.
h ►>> 100%

If you had done basic match for university students then you know how to use limits

Escrito por Tundy, 10.11.2014 at 18:18

Escrito por clovis1122, 10.11.2014 at 18:04

-off topic-

in other words, your logic is totally wrong
go clovis, learn english.

Nice useless thread.

" Clovis showed I am wrong, therefore, I am going to mark his OP argument as "off-topic", and try to get this post locked a.s.a.p"

- Tunder.

Escrito por clovis1122, 11.11.2014 at 03:38

" Clovis showed I am wrong, therefore, I am going to mark his OP argument as "off-topic", and try to get this post locked a.s.a.p"

- Tunder.

If you shoot somebody 100 times in the head, its impossible for him to survive.
You may argue that X will make the person survive, but probability its just the art of imaginary numbers, thats the lovely thing about it: they don't really exist, is just your brain trying to find a excuse for you to be right, it doesn't matter how absurd,illogical or idiot it is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationalization_(making_excuses)

Escrito por clovis1122, 11.11.2014 at 03:38

" Clovis showed I am wrong, therefore, I am going to mark his OP argument as "off-topic", and try to get this post locked a.s.a.p"

- Tunder.

No seriously, learn English. American, Aussie, idc but learn it. Impossible means that it cannot happen. But we sometimes use it like ''this game is impossible to beat'' we're not saying it is REALLY impossible to beat, but that it is VERY HARD. The game is BEATABLE, it is perfectly possible to beat the game.

Escrito por Guest, 11.11.2014 at 08:15

Escrito por clovis1122, 11.11.2014 at 03:38

" Clovis showed I am wrong, therefore, I am going to mark his OP argument as "off-topic", and try to get this post locked a.s.a.p"

- Tunder.

.... Impossible means that it cannot happen. But we sometimes use it like ''this game is impossible to beat'' we're not saying it is REALLY impossible to beat, but that it is VERY HARD. ....

Most people say impossible, but mean mean 'improbable' -

You keep using that word... I do not think it means what you think it means -

Escrito por Guest, 11.11.2014 at 03:38

Escrito por Guest, 11.11.2014 at 08:15

But we sometimes use it like ''this game is impossible to beat'' we're not saying it is REALLY impossible to beat, but that it is VERY HARD. The game is BEATABLE, it is perfectly possible to beat the game.

In other words, you agree with me. Good, now tell that to tunder because he think impossible mean it cannot happen at 100% plz

Escrito por clovis1122, 11.11.2014 at 17:48

Escrito por Guest, 11.11.2014 at 08:15

But we sometimes use it like ''this game is impossible to beat'' we're not saying it is REALLY impossible to beat, but that it is VERY HARD. The game is BEATABLE, it is perfectly possible to beat the game.

In other words, you agree with me. Good, now tell that to tunder because he think impossible mean it cannot happen at 100% plz

No, in other words he is trying to explain you that people exaggerate the difficulty of something when they use the word "impossible". in other words: impossible =/= very hard


P.S for those who get the reference, kudos for you xD

Escrito por Tundy, 11.11.2014 at 21:02

No, in other words he is trying to explain you that people exaggerate the difficulty of something when they use the word "impossible". in other words: impossible =/= very hard


P.S for those who get the reference, kudos for you xD

" Time to manipulate words" ~Tunder

he say "We", not "people". He is refering to him and a group of people. Dont try to manipulate this.

And Nice conclusion pulling up from nonwhere, he never say people exaggerate, he say when "WE" say somenthing is impossible to beat, we are not sayding it is "REALLY" impossible to beat, but very had.

He is applying the 3rd definition of the word impossible which you ignored: "Extremery hard".

Escrito por clovis1122, 11.11.2014 at 17:48

Escrito por Guest, 11.11.2014 at 08:15

But we sometimes use it like ''this game is impossible to beat'' we're not saying it is REALLY impossible to beat, but that it is VERY HARD. The game is BEATABLE, it is perfectly possible to beat the game.

In other words, you agree with me. Good, now tell that to tunder because he think impossible mean it cannot happen at 100% plz

No I mean people don't use the word correctly you.. you... oh yeah ad hominem

Escrito por clovis1122, 12.11.2014 at 06:38

Escrito por Tundy, 11.11.2014 at 21:02

No, in other words he is trying to explain you that people exaggerate the difficulty of something when they use the word "impossible". in other words: impossible =/= very hard


P.S for those who get the reference, kudos for you xD

" Time to manipulate words" ~Tunder

he say "We", not "people". He is refering to him and a group of people. Dont try to manipulate this.

And Nice conclusion pulling up from nonwhere, he never say people exaggerate, he say when "WE" say somenthing is impossible to beat, we are not sayding it is "REALLY" impossible to beat, but very had.

He is applying the 3rd definition of the word impossible which you ignored: "Extremery hard".

We as in normal people. I use it when I try to beat the first fe levels in World Conqueror 2

wtf this is impossible I didn't take out UK fast enough? UK WAS CRIPPLED!!! Also how do I cap Japan's islands fast enough when he has a big navy, I only have a few isands for an ''economy'' and few land units?!

And I ALSO meant that people use the word to EXAGERRATE. I thought I explained that to you?

Escrito por Guest, 12.11.2014 at 13:59

Escrito por clovis1122, 12.11.2014 at 06:38

Escrito por Tundy, 11.11.2014 at 21:02

No, in other words he is trying to explain you that people exaggerate the difficulty of something when they use the word "impossible". in other words: impossible =/= very hard


P.S for those who get the reference, kudos for you xD

" Time to manipulate words" ~Tunder

he say "We", not "people". He is refering to him and a group of people. Dont try to manipulate this.

And Nice conclusion pulling up from nonwhere, he never say people exaggerate, he say when "WE" say somenthing is impossible to beat, we are not sayding it is "REALLY" impossible to beat, but very had.

He is applying the 3rd definition of the word impossible which you ignored: "Extremery hard".

We as in normal people. I use it when I try to beat the first fe levels in World Conqueror 2

wtf this is impossible I didn't take out UK fast enough? UK WAS CRIPPLED!!! Also how do I cap Japan's islands fast enough when he has a big navy, I only have a few isands for an ''economy'' and few land units?!

And I ALSO meant that people use the word to EXAGERRATE. I thought I explained that to you?

Learn to write then, because in your reply you say when people say somenthing is impossible, they dont really mean it is.

In other words, one of the significates of the word "Impossible" is "Extremery hard" as it is written in the diccionary.

Where is the word "Exagerating" in your reply?

Nonwhere, right?

Thanks you.

Escrito por clovis1122, 12.11.2014 at 16:58

Escrito por Guest, 12.11.2014 at 13:59

Escrito por clovis1122, 12.11.2014 at 06:38

Escrito por Tundy, 11.11.2014 at 21:02

No, in other words he is trying to explain you that people exaggerate the difficulty of something when they use the word "impossible". in other words: impossible =/= very hard


P.S for those who get the reference, kudos for you xD

" Time to manipulate words" ~Tunder

he say "We", not "people". He is refering to him and a group of people. Dont try to manipulate this.

And Nice conclusion pulling up from nonwhere, he never say people exaggerate, he say when "WE" say somenthing is impossible to beat, we are not sayding it is "REALLY" impossible to beat, but very had.

He is applying the 3rd definition of the word impossible which you ignored: "Extremery hard".

We as in normal people. I use it when I try to beat the first fe levels in World Conqueror 2

wtf this is impossible I didn't take out UK fast enough? UK WAS CRIPPLED!!! Also how do I cap Japan's islands fast enough when he has a big navy, I only have a few isands for an ''economy'' and few land units?!

And I ALSO meant that people use the word to EXAGERRATE. I thought I explained that to you?

Learn to write then, because in your reply you say when people say somenthing is impossible, they dont really mean it is.

In other words, one of the significates of the word "Impossible" is "Extremery hard" as it is written in the diccionary.

Where is the word "Exagerating" in your reply?

Nonwhere, right?

Thanks you.

You are both qualified for becoming politicians... lots of words, no meaning at all, congrats for your achievements! Go to your nearest parliament and start spreading your empty words all over, people would love your debates!

Escrito por clovis1122, 12.11.2014 at 16:58

Escrito por Guest, 12.11.2014 at 13:59

Escrito por clovis1122, 12.11.2014 at 06:38

Escrito por Tundy, 11.11.2014 at 21:02

No, in other words he is trying to explain you that people exaggerate the difficulty of something when they use the word "impossible". in other words: impossible =/= very hard


P.S for those who get the reference, kudos for you xD

" Time to manipulate words" ~Tunder

he say "We", not "people". He is refering to him and a group of people. Dont try to manipulate this.

And Nice conclusion pulling up from nonwhere, he never say people exaggerate, he say when "WE" say somenthing is impossible to beat, we are not sayding it is "REALLY" impossible to beat, but very had.

He is applying the 3rd definition of the word impossible which you ignored: "Extremery hard".

We as in normal people. I use it when I try to beat the first fe levels in World Conqueror 2

wtf this is impossible I didn't take out UK fast enough? UK WAS CRIPPLED!!! Also how do I cap Japan's islands fast enough when he has a big navy, I only have a few isands for an ''economy'' and few land units?!

And I ALSO meant that people use the word to EXAGERRATE. I thought I explained that to you?

Learn to write then, because in your reply you say when people say somenthing is impossible, they dont really mean it is.

In other words, one of the significates of the word "Impossible" is "Extremery hard" as it is written in the diccionary.

Where is the word "Exagerating" in your reply?

Nonwhere, right?

Thanks you.

Yeah, when I say ''this game is impossible'' I am infact saying ''this game is IMPROBABLE''.

Improbable =/= Impossible, since impossible MEANS ''it cannot happen''

Which should correctly use the word improbable?

a) ''It's impossible for me to succeed in this game''

b) ''It is impossible for an unstoppable object to collide with an unmovable object''

Answer?

P.S. I am almost feeling stupider thanks to your worster grammer. h8 u

Escrito por Guest, 14.11.2014 at 11:00

Which should correctly use the word improbable?

a) ''It's impossible for me to succeed in this game''

b) ''It is impossible for an unstoppable object to collide with an unmovable object''

Answer?

P.S. I am almost feeling stupider thanks to your worster grammer. h8 u

Welcome to the group:

"Is impossible for the world to be sphere " (1400's ages).
"Is impossible for 1 + 1 to be equal to 3 " (650's ages).
" Is impossible for us to go into the space" (1800's ages).
" Is impossible for us to live in the moon" (1900's ages).
" Is impossible to create something worsen than the nuclear bomb" (1945's ages).
" Is impossible for napoleon to win 5 against 1" (1800's ages)
" Is impossible for us to lose" (Napoleon, before we #RAPE him in the battle of saint domingue (Currently Dominicain Republic)).
" Is impossible to go to china by water without pass though Egypt" (1400's)
" Is impossible for you to acquire rank 5 in few games (Before RP came up)
"Is impossible for you to be invisible" (Before new research)
" Is impossible for us to lose" ~ Spanish's invincible armada.
"No, it is impossible for us to lose" ~England's counter-invincible armada.

etc... Want me to follow?

They are all making a correct use of the word "Impossible". None of them was "Exaggerating", as you said. It was serious impossible for something like that to happen. And with this, I mean the chances that a meteor came and destroy England's counter army or a tsunami or two meteors or the world suddenly break up are serious 0.000000000~~1%. But yeah, as the Spanish army, the England one had a bad time over there.

As I said ,Impossible also means extremely hard. Nothing is impossible in this life.

Escrito por clovis1122, 14.11.2014 at 11:15

Escrito por Guest, 14.11.2014 at 11:00

Which should correctly use the word improbable?

a) ''It's impossible for me to succeed in this game''

b) ''It is impossible for an unstoppable object to collide with an unmovable object''

Answer?

P.S. I am almost feeling stupider thanks to your worster grammer. h8 u

Welcome to the group:

"Is impossible for the world to be sphere " (1400's ages).
"Is impossible for 1 + 1 to be equal to 3 " (650's ages).
" Is impossible for us to go into the space" (1800's ages).
" Is impossible for us to live in the moon" (1900's ages).
" Is impossible to create something worsen than the nuclear bomb" (1945's ages).
" Is impossible for napoleon to win 5 against 1" (1800's ages)
" Is impossible for us to lose" (Napoleon, before we #RAPE him in the battle of saint domingue (Currently Dominicain Republic)).
" Is impossible to go to china by water without pass though Egypt" (1400's)
" Is impossible for you to acquire rank 5 in few games (Before RP came up)
"Is impossible for you to be invisible" (Before new research)
" Is impossible for us to lose" ~ Spanish's invincible armada.
"No, it is impossible for us to lose" ~England's counter-invincible armada.

etc... Want me to follow?

They are all making a correct use of the word "Impossible". None of them was "Exaggerating", as you said. It was serious impossible for something like that to happen. And with this, I mean the chances that a meteor came and destroy England's counter army or a tsunami or two meteors or the world suddenly break up are serious 0.000000000~~1%. But yeah, as the Spanish army, the England one had a bad time over there.

As I said ,Impossible also means extremely hard. Nothing is impossible in this life.

''Is impossible for 1+1=3''

So you think there is a 98 percent of chance for that to happen?

And the English were ALSO EXAGERRATING ABOUT THEIR ARMADA. Btw the English won by luck. Weather destroyed the Spanish. So they were exagerrating

''It's impossible for us to live on the moon''
Maybe they meant it won't happen before 2000. But that we would set up a colony on Mars or something by 2099.

" Is impossible for napoleon to win 5 against 1" (1800's ages)

and they thought so. They thought no chance that Napoleon would win. And in the end, they were right and Napoleon lost.

And so what not all of them were exaggerating? Some THOUGHT it was litteraly impossible for something to happen but it happened since they were wrong.
The Spanish thought: ''99 percent chance we destroy those lads, lads.'' They probably thought that there was a low chance for a storm or whatever to destroy their navy. Or maybe they were simply wrong and thought ''100 percent chance that we got 'em laddies'' and didn't take in for storms, and therefore calculated wrong.

Impossible means ''never will happen''. You just see the definetions of ''unacceptable'' or ''improbable'' since people exagerrate all the time

Escrito por Guest, 14.11.2014 at 11:44

''Is impossible for 1+1=3''

So you think there is a 98 percent of chance for that to happen?

Well they say it was impossible until someone's back in the 600's in India discovered ( or just tried, since it was away there) to divide between zero.

Since there is no number, it was impossible - Until someone's started to joke and divide between zero. He didn't divided 4 / 0, but found a way to make 1 = 2 by dividing between AB, where AB equals to zero.

And yeah, just because this some years later scientific put the arbitrary rule " You cannot divide between zero". Yeah it is possible, but since you can get a lot of results, they just prohibited it for whole match.

Why arbitrary? Because you can prove 1 = 2 when dividing between zero, while following all the non arbitrary mathematical rules.

But yeah, arguing that divide between zero makes no sense, they made it as a rule.

Why I say is impossible? Because it was, until eventually someone's falls in the ~2% probability and found a way to proves it. And yeah a rule was made for prevent this possibility, but nothing guarantee us that there is not another way for find the same result.

More information about the fallacy: https://www.math.toronto.edu/mathnet/falseProofs/first1eq2.html

( The own page clarify that it was because divide between zero makes no sense and not a rule someones put off. LOL!!!!!!)

-------------------------------------

So you are saying everybody exaggerate when they use the word "impossible" ? Then why the word exist ? Because nothing is impossible in this life.

And of course, answer us why the dictionary have one definition for "Impossible" as "Extremely hard" ?

Is not only one dictionary, but MANY ones. Are you implying the big majority of people which believes in this definition is wrong? Or maybe there is a big casualty than all the dictionary I've search for are wrong?

Or maybe you want to say that the word "impossible" is like the logic: All the type of logic are rational, a logic that is not rational is irrational. A logic classified as irrational need a rational process, and it becomes logic again.

In other words, all that is impossible cannot be done. Something that is possible is not impossible. Something that has been classified as impossible but intermediately after being proven wrong turn into possible, losing the "impossible" classification?

Well, the difference is that logic is a way of think, while impossible is a way of see.

Escrito por clovis1122, 14.11.2014 at 17:12

Escrito por Guest, 14.11.2014 at 11:44

''Is impossible for 1+1=3''

So you think there is a 98 percent of chance for that to happen?

Well they say it was impossible until someone's back in the 600's in India discovered ( or just tried, since it was away there) to divide between zero.

Since there is no number, it was impossible - Until someone's started to joke and divide between zero. He didn't divided 4 / 0, but found a way to make 1 = 2 by dividing between AB, where AB equals to zero.

And yeah, just because this some years later scientific put the arbitrary rule " You cannot divide between zero". Yeah it is possible, but since you can get a lot of results, they just prohibited it for whole match.

Why arbitrary? Because you can prove 1 = 2 when dividing between zero, while following all the non arbitrary mathematical rules.

But yeah, arguing that divide between zero makes no sense, they made it as a rule.

Why I say is impossible? Because it was, until eventually someone's falls in the ~2% probability and found a way to proves it. And yeah a rule was made for prevent this possibility, but nothing guarantee us that there is not another way for find the same result.

More information about the fallacy: https://www.math.toronto.edu/mathnet/falseProofs/first1eq2.html

( The own page clarify that it was because divide between zero makes no sense and not a rule someones put off. LOL!!!!!!)

-------------------------------------

So you are saying everybody exaggerate when they use the word "impossible" ? Then why the word exist ? Because nothing is impossible in this life.

And of course, answer us why the dictionary have one definition for "Impossible" as "Extremely hard" ?

Is not only one dictionary, but MANY ones. Are you implying the big majority of people which believes in this definition is wrong? Or maybe there is a big casualty than all the dictionary I've search for are wrong?

Or maybe you want to say that the word "impossible" is like the logic: All the type of logic are rational, a logic that is not rational is irrational. A logic classified as irrational need a rational process, and it becomes logic again.

In other words, all that is impossible cannot be done. Something that is possible is not impossible. Something that has been classified as impossible but intermediately after being proven wrong turn into possible, losing the "impossible" classification?

Well, the difference is that logic is a way of think, while impossible is a way of see.

Sorry, but the absolute value of 0 is zero.
0 represents the lack of something, its technically emptiness

You can't divide by nothing, you either divide by something or you don't.

Dividing 1 by 0 is absurd, since 0 represents nothing, how can u divide something by nothing at all?

---

Impossible means that something can't happen, the other definitions are there because sometimes humans exaggerate and use to word impossible to make a hard tasks seem even harder.

---

Its impossible for humans to swim naked in lava, and survive. (Literially)

---

Are you delusional? Or a bad troll? Its impossible for somebody to be this stupid (i am exaggerating, it is possible for somebody to be that stupid).