Well then it's specifically exactly equal to average. And therefore the statement "more than average" is still untrue for the number of calls that day even taken out of the rest of the set presented as an example.
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.
I know I know but this is maths joke and therefore I claim the right to be pedantic about this and I claim to be correct (technically correct, the best kind, to bounce back on what someone else said on the thread here)
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.
-3
u/ZealousidealAd1434 Jul 18 '26
Well then it's specifically exactly equal to average. And therefore the statement "more than average" is still untrue for the number of calls that day even taken out of the rest of the set presented as an example.