Started By
Message

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

Posted on 5/20/19 at 6:33 pm to
Posted by Korkstand
Member since Nov 2003
28896 posts
Posted on 5/20/19 at 6:33 pm to
quote:

I’m not sure you get to determine the definition of the term. It is what it is, right?
I didn't determine the definition of the term myself. It is a very simple term that defines itself, logically. Or so I thought.
quote:

Y’all don’t get to change it.
We are not changing it. We are trying our damnedest to explain why our definition is the only one that makes sense.


Using "dog years" when converting human->dog AND dog->human doesn't make any sense! Take the human out of it and convert dog->cat and cat->dog. Is the 1 year old dog still 7 "dog years" old? No! He is, by definition, 1 dog year old. And in this case he's about 1 "cat year" old, too.
Posted by ReauxlTide222
St. Petersburg
Member since Nov 2010
84593 posts
Posted on 5/20/19 at 6:39 pm to
quote:

Using "dog years" when converting human->dog AND dog->human doesn't make any sense!
There isn’t a term for the concept of converting the aging process of a human to a dog.

There’s only a term for the concept of converting the aging process of a dog to a human.
first pageprev pagePage 1 of 1Next pagelast page
refresh

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitterInstagram