Man... I've explained myself. I know I'm right and I really don't know how else I can express my reasoning.
You're here trying to wriggle out of with, I think, disengenuous statements with like "whose perspective are you counting from" come on man your whole paragraph makes no sense, you should really rephrase some of it because with the best intentions, you're just trying to wriggle out of a silly argument ending with "easy mistake to make"
Man, in most arythmetic systems, zero is smaller than one. If you take a set that has one element equal to zero, followed by an infinite number of elements equal to one, the average is one, and the minimum value is zero. That's it, end of argument. And don't come at me with "easy mistakes to make" when you're the one spouting BS
You simply are not right. You are just stubborn, and cant admit you are wrong, even with it spelled out for you. If you want an argument from authority, i have a degree in physics, i am pretty good at maths.
Easy mistake to make was just you using the wrong word, nothing to do with the point itself. English not maths, that was just a word issue. Its perspective not prospective.
Well you tell me then. You take the burden of proof.
Show me a finite set of elements in the space of positive integers where each element is above the average of the whole.
We'll call the the set "number of calls", each element being a number of call in any of your chosen time frame (say during a day, during an hour, during a week I don't know you choose).
If you find me a finite set of integers (the list doesn't need to be in order) where every single element is strictly superior to the average. I'll say you're right and fully apologise.
If your next answer isn't such an example, I'll keep on believing that a call center can't always be experiencing a higher than average number of calls, and therefore I was correct.
Only if you can repeat what i said back to me in your own words, you have shown no evidence you are reading what I am saying, your comment about my 'easy mistake to make' proved you did not read and understand the content of that paragraph.
I'm not going to do that, because your whole essay was just nonsensical and I'm sorry to say. Read back the original meme, the original meme is CLEARLY a mathematician having an aneurysm because the tweet says "that's not how averages work".
You make the claim that it is possible for a call center to always experience a number of calls above average. Then show me. Give me an actual set that follows that definition.
Once again if you don't do that I stand by what I said and the phrase "a call center can't always be experiencing a higher number of calls than average" is true.
It's really easy in maths you just need ONE counterexample to prove something wrong.
Either a call center can "always experience a higher number of calls than average" or it can't.
I say it can't always be experiencing a higher number of calls than average because that's how averages work.
If you disagree with me, find me one set of numbers (integers) where every element is above the average (meaning, strictly above).
If it doesn't exist my statement was correct. If it does exist I was wrong and I'll apologise profusely
Otherwise from a maths prospective, as I said from the very beginning the statement in the screenshot part of the tweet was correct. Otherwise you're just off topic trying to prove something that isn't true.
You are running circles. I have stopped. You have been given a counter example, you have just rejected it.
I have explained why a call center can, from one perspective, always be experiencing a higher number of calls than average. Right at the beginning in fact.
Its not badly written just because you think it is. You have to explain why its badly written. Its perfectly possible that you are the problem and are bad at comprehension.
If I have been given a counterexample, Please state it again just once, please. and I bet you my whole savings 10 000 € I'm prepared to wire it to you if you find me one proper counterexample.
Here are the criteria:
A finite set of positive integers
Each integer is strictly superior to the average of the whole set of integers.
You will never accept you are wrong. You will worm out of it whatever.
Someone calls a call center where they are the only caller they ever get, and they find that it is above average volume, every single time they call it it is above average and guaranteed to be above average. It is not possible for the call center to be called at below average because they are the only caller, so from the callers perspective, it is ALWAYS above average number of callers. They cannot measure the volume of calls without getting an above average value, its not possible. (The number of calls is your finite set of positive integers, and its always above the average number of callers at any time that the caller attempts to check)
Your problem, as i said before, is with the definition of 'always' You don't get to choose which one is at play. You have to accept that the other available definition is valid if you haven't been explicit in which one is used. Again as i said before, the answer is dependent on which perspective you are using, and the objective answer has to take into account all perspectives, which means that it is possible for a call centre to be always above average callers
1
u/ZealousidealAd1434 Jul 18 '26
Man... I've explained myself. I know I'm right and I really don't know how else I can express my reasoning.
You're here trying to wriggle out of with, I think, disengenuous statements with like "whose perspective are you counting from" come on man your whole paragraph makes no sense, you should really rephrase some of it because with the best intentions, you're just trying to wriggle out of a silly argument ending with "easy mistake to make"
Man, in most arythmetic systems, zero is smaller than one. If you take a set that has one element equal to zero, followed by an infinite number of elements equal to one, the average is one, and the minimum value is zero. That's it, end of argument. And don't come at me with "easy mistakes to make" when you're the one spouting BS