What exactly does ‘one’ mean?

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

  1. nsaspook

    Thread Starter AAC Fanatic!

    Aug 27, 2009
    2,902
    2,151
    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
    1,328
    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
    3,759
    920
    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
    5,670
    897
    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
    17,718
    4,786
    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
    16,239
    6,723
    And that is the entire point of letting lawyers talk about math.
     
    cmartinez and fL0per like this.
  7. MikeML

    AAC Fanatic!

    Oct 2, 2009
    5,450
    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...
     
  8. nsaspook

    Thread Starter AAC Fanatic!

    Aug 27, 2009
    2,902
    2,151
    What?
     
  9. MikeML

    AAC Fanatic!

    Oct 2, 2009
    5,450
    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
    1,328
    [​IMG]
     
    fL0per likes this.
  11. djsfantasi

    AAC Fanatic!

    Apr 11, 2010
    2,784
    825
    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
    1,981
    388
    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
    1,988
    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
    17,718
    4,786
    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
    1,988
    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
    1,328
    Someone should pay these judges using half a check. See how they feel about "one" then :D:p
     
    cmartinez and killivolt like this.
  18. BR-549

    Well-Known Member

    Sep 22, 2013
    1,981
    388
    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
    614
    121
    When
    [​IMG]
    can be interpreted as
    [​IMG]
    I think it is very sad.
     
    Last edited: Aug 14, 2015
    cmartinez, DerStrom8 and #12 like this.
Loading...