# What exactly does ‘one’ mean?

Discussion in 'Math' started by nsaspook, Aug 12, 2015.

1. ### nsaspook Thread Starter AAC Fanatic!

Aug 27, 2009
3,011
2,356
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/s...nt-on-thorny-mathematical-issue-10350568.html
Now your 1% raise will be exactly 0.5%.

2. ### DerStrom8 Well-Known Member

Feb 20, 2011
2,428
1,329
For that matter, what does any other number really mean?

Numbers are purely representative. They are not physical aspects of the real world, so with our minds (which are based in the real world), we can't really define it. We can only use something to represent "one" (or "13", or "17,648"). This whole argument is ridiculous.

And bringing rounding into it is even worse. You round based on what is being represented. You can't use it as a definition.

3. ### Kermit2 AAC Fanatic!

Feb 5, 2010
3,847
963
But one can use it anyway one wants.

One might even say he is defined that way on purpose

4. ### jpanhalt AAC Fanatic!

Jan 18, 2008
5,699
909
One appellant court, three judges, and half a brain amongst them. The patent was stated in such a way that the uncertainty was given. 1.000000001% was covered, but 0.999999999% was not. Presumably, everyone agreed that "between" was inclusive of the limits.

As for your raise, simply extend the argument of rounding that was used, the lower limit is not really 0.5%, it is really 0.45%, but the lower limit that is not 0.45%, it is really 0.445% and so forth.

Nevertheless, it is now a matter of precedence in those courts. Such dependence on precedence occasions tomes written on the meanings of simple words over which attorneys get paid well to bicker.

John

nsaspook likes this.
5. ### WBahn Moderator

Mar 31, 2012
18,085
4,917
Once again, the lawyers believe they are the end-all-be-all with regards to everything.

Having said that, I can definitely see where, in some specific legal context such as a particular contract, the term "one" might be reasonable interpreted as being applicable to anything within that range. But for the reporter to put that in the same vein as some deep, ages-old philosophical discussion reveals more about the self-aggrandizing nature of the reporter than of the issue.

In reading the article, either the reporter or the court is incapable to comprehending some pretty simple concepts. The earlier court ruled that the patent term of "between 1% and 25%" covered actual ranges between 0.95% and 25.5%. That is a range of 5% below the 1% floor and 2% above the 25% floor. But the article claims that this ruling meant that 1% covered everything from 0.95% to 1.5%, which there is not indication of any such thing. It sounds like the earlier court attempted to determine the error in measurements in that industry when determining the concentrations of these kinds of solutions at both the 1% and the 25% level, which doesn't sound entirely unreasonable. It sounds like the current court is much further out in left field.

Personally, I would take a strict interpretation and say that if you filed (and were awarded) a patent that covered between 1% and 25%, then if someone else is less than 1%, by however small an amount, that they are not infringing on your patent. If you want to claim that someone that markets a product at 0.99% is probably violating your patent because of their inability to control the actual concentration to the necessary level, then the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that the other guy's product is actually infringing on your patent.

nsaspook likes this.
6. ### #12 Expert

Nov 30, 2010
16,671
7,314
And that is the entire point of letting lawyers talk about math.

cmartinez and fL0per like this.
7. ### MikeML AAC Fanatic!

Oct 2, 2009
5,451
1,066
I thought this was all settled when we defined "integers". You can have one car, or one carrot; you cannot have between 0.5 and 1.5 of a car...

Aug 27, 2009
3,011
2,356
What?

9. ### MikeML AAC Fanatic!

Oct 2, 2009
5,451
1,066
Well, I don't want to have 0.5 of a car...

cmartinez and fL0per like this.
10. ### DerStrom8 Well-Known Member

Feb 20, 2011
2,428
1,329

fL0per likes this.
11. ### djsfantasi AAC Fanatic!

Apr 11, 2010
2,900
876
Reminds me of an old aphorism we had in college:

2 + 2 = 5, for very large values of two and very small values of five.​

12. ### BR-549 Well-Known Member

Sep 22, 2013
2,177
418
I guess 1 is not a lonely number anymore.

killivolt and nsaspook like this.
13. ### sirch2 Well-Known Member

Jan 21, 2013
1,008
351
I wonder what the judges would decide if I took a case before them where I had ordered one cake but received a half eaten cake. As MikeML says above, they need to distinguish integers from reals.

Reminds me of a mathematician, a physicist and an engineer asked what 2 + 2 equals

The mathematician says 4

The physicist says somewhere between 3.9 and 4.1

The engineer says 4 but lets call it 8 to be on the safe side

BR-549, Sinus23, nsaspook and 2 others like this.
14. ### strantor AAC Fanatic!

Oct 3, 2010
4,302
1,989
The way I read it, the conclusion is not limited to fractions/decimals. Even the integer itself is watered down.
One isn't one, for whatever reason, it doesn't matter.
So I wonder what the judges would decide if I took a case before them where I had stolen \$75,000.
That's 75,000 ones.
Ones aren't ones. What are they? We don't know.
Since we don't know what they are, they could be nothing.
If there is any possibility that they are nothing, then there is an equal possibility that I didn't steal anything.
If there is any possibility that I did not steal anything, then I cannot be convicted beyond a shadow of a doubt.
Therefore, I walk.

wayneh, killivolt and #12 like this.
15. ### WBahn Moderator

Mar 31, 2012
18,085
4,917
How do you conclude that their ruling had anything to do with integers at all?

I don't think we were reading the same article.

16. ### strantor AAC Fanatic!

Oct 3, 2010
4,302
1,989
I didn't read the article. I just read the portion quoted in post #1.

17. ### DerStrom8 Well-Known Member

Feb 20, 2011
2,428
1,329
Someone should pay these judges using half a check. See how they feel about "one" then

cmartinez and killivolt like this.
18. ### BR-549 Well-Known Member

Sep 22, 2013
2,177
418
The first step in the PERVERSION and CORRUPTION process is to change or muddle definitions.

The second step is to introduce false equalities and comparisons.

This allows authority to selectively apply the standard, or principle, or law.

The result is INEQUALITY.

Our society loves this, but would never admit it. There is no need to develop skill or talent, all you need is love.

Relationships, networking and the societal collective is the in thing today.

If you know the secret handshake, you will be judged under a different standard.

This happens in all societies today, and is perfectly natural. This is a way humans are.

Not long ago, a group a humans realized this and started a society that was governed by a FEW standards, principles and laws(instead of humans)..........it worked great, but didn’t last too long.

The keyword is FEW. It was so limited, that if an issue came up that the law did not cover....the LAW(government), had no authority over it. That was the first thing to go.

Humans crave authority, so they played with the definitions and made false comparisons.

They replaced principles with humans again. They call it enlightened progress.

cmartinez and tjohnson like this.
19. ### Lool Member

May 8, 2013
117
12
Unfortunately, the patent system is a lot more broken than what is indicated by this one incident.

I can see they argument going either way, but they will never consider the most important aspect of this issue. This is not a case of how to interpret the number "1", whether by significant figures, rounding, industry practice or any other number-based argument. The issue is as simple as looking to see if the people that claim 0.77 % is providing an optimized performance, at least locally in the 0 to 2 % range, are truly able to demonstrate, with data, that they discovered this. Obviously, if 0,77% provides a local maximum that is better than other concentrations in the 1-25% range, then the original patent missed the critical discovery, because only incompetent fools would publish a.patent and not include an optimum value deliberately.

If the "0.77 percenters" are skirting the patent by slipping below the 1% limit with reduced effectiveness, then they deserve to lose their rights. Still, that should be no problem for them because they can lower the concentration to 0.49 % and play the same game.

20. ### tjohnson Active Member

Dec 23, 2014
618
122
When

can be interpreted as

I think it is very sad.

Last edited: Aug 14, 2015
cmartinez, DerStrom8 and #12 like this.