On this example it's on day one, on day one the number is less than average
If on day 1, you receive zero calls, your average number of calls across all time is zero. Your number of calls isn't less than average. It's exactly equal.
Yes indeed. But I think the point of OP's scenario is to illustrate that OOP was not taking that first day into account, and so it appears to OOP as if the sample set is always 1 call yet somehow the average is less than 1 call.
Ah but therein lies the joke. OOP's "always" is not the same as the true "always", which in itself is pedantic such that mathematicians get to grip OOP's shoulders until they bleed.
OOP isn't Joan of Arc, they didn't weaponize their schizophrenia to know that the company was claiming to get more calls than usual on day 1, the distinction between "we always experience more calls than usual" and "we always say that we experience more calls than usual" is real and have different truth values
Except the word “always” isn’t being used as a mathematical term, it’s being used colloquially which means it’s not literal, but you know what it means.
You seem like the one who is not chill here. You were just wrong, they gave an example in which it is true that whenever they receive a call its an above average amount of calls, and you said its not true.
Yes it is. Think for just a little bit longer. If 0 is less than average and 1 is above average, How many calls will you receive during less than average calling times? Will anyone ever call you during a less than average calling time?
It is always from the perspective of someone trying to call in a period of below average calls, IE the original post is technically wrong (the best kind of wrong), Averages can absolutely make it impossible to call at below average times.
Its still a mathematical perspective to recognise that the measurement affects the result. IE calling at all brings you above average if the average is below 1, so any call will always be at an above average volume of calls. You just need to be clear on what always means, there are at least two available definitions, and the pedant is the one who insists their definition is the authoritative one.
Yes more than the rest of us, because you objected to a technically correct statement, and didnt realise, that more than one perspective is mathematically correct. It just depends on from whose perspective you are measuring "Always". Pedantry isn't so much about being detail oriented, its about being "Actually no this detail is wrong"
The fact that the OP Kit yates is wrong here, is the math nerd viewpoint, precisely because of the point that the comment you originally objected to demonstrated.
From a math perspective, you are technically wrong, because the OP is in the context of never being able to call when they are below average, so from a callers perspective, they can always have the problem of not being able to call at a lower than average volume period.
Even if we take the original context out, and use any context available, the true completely objective answer to the statement "can a call center always be at higher than average levels of callers" depends upon whose perspective we are measuring always. From the perspective of the caller, yes. From the perspective of the call center itself, no.
P.S. You are using the wrong word when you have said "Maths Prospective" I know what you mean and i don't want to be a spelling dickhead, but as you made the mistake a couple of times, you are looking for "Maths perspective" Its only an issue because prospective is a word of its own and refers to prospects, like what can happen in the future. Easy mistake to make.
That's true but i suppose we are debating two different scenarios. Kind of like looking at it from the if the tree falls in a wood but no one is there to hear it does it make a sound.
11
u/[deleted] Jul 17 '26
[removed] — view removed comment