re: Another math thread: "In dog beers I've only had one" doesn't make sense

quote:

---

This is the only way you can be wrong. Congrats.

This is a semantics argument. Nothing is absolutely correct.

A 1 year old dog is THE EQUIVALENT of a 7 year old human. A 7 year old human is the equivalent age of a 1 year old dog.

The term "dog years" and "human years" are not terms you and those you are arguing with agree on.

---

Yeah we don't agree, because my definition makes sense and theirs does not.

quote:

---

Thus, you want to say a 7 year old human is 1 year in "dog years". As you define it, sure. Congrats on being "absolutely correct" in a semantics argument where you get to define the terms. Mathmatically, everything the OP is saying is correct. You should be able to acknowledge that even if you disagree with the terminology.

---

But no, because OP has defined "dog years" incorrectly, his math is absolutely backwards.

If a human is 7 years old, then he's 7 "human years" old. I doubt anyone would argue semantics on that one, right? So when a dog is 7 years old, how can anyone argue that he's not also 7 "dog years" old? If one can argue what "dog years" means in that context, why can't I argue that my human years don't match my actual years?

If I want to compare my age to a dog, I would have to convert MY age to "dog years" if it is to make any sense whatsoever. If I want to compare a dog's age to a human, then I would have to convert the dog's age to "human years". To express a dog's age in dog years is pointless and nonsensical, because it doesn't explain what animal you are comparing his age to. People just assume the comparison is to humans, which is a good assumption probably 100% of the time. But it is still only an assumption, because the phrase "dog years" when applied to a dog doesn't give any indication of which animal you're supposed to be comparing its age to.