- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
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 9:56 pm to ReauxlTide222
Posted on 5/20/19 at 9:56 pm to ReauxlTide222
And Purina. They're experts.
And WebMD.
And WebMD.
1
Posted on 5/20/19 at 9:58 pm to slackster
quote:
WebMD
quote:
If you own a dog, you've heard this rule: 1 year for Fido equals 7 years for you.
Apparently Pectus and Reauxl haven't heard that rule.
Posted on 5/20/19 at 10:02 pm to Pectus
The horse's name is Friday.
/thread
Posted on 5/20/19 at 10:27 pm to slackster
Yeah. It's not fair. That's why this has gone on as long as it has.
OK. I figured it out....
Growth curves:
Any/all animal grows logrithmically from birth to some pre-adolescent body state. The chart above represents the growth of a human baby over 2 years in head size/circumference, which should match body size.
The logrithmic growth would be over the stage of 1 human year, then approach linear for the next year. Let's say the blue dot is the inflection point, at 3 human months.
In your interpretation, dogs would be this same trajectory and rate, just replace "human" with dog in the previous paragraph. And then you would say that "dog years" in referring to a human has the same growth curve at 3 months * 7 (~2 years), and 2 years * 7 (14 years). We know this new calculated rate based on your interpretation of "dog years" is not true, because this graph was built from real human data.
However, if we look at dog growth from birth to pre-adolescent in months...
We see the dog reach post-adolescent and adult stages after 2 years time. Logarithmic body mass increase is in the first 0-2 months, and linear growth is in 2 to 4 months and on to adult body mass (where the cells are empty).
This reflects the dogs growth cycle to adulthood in human/Earth years.
We multiply these growth rates to scale to that of humans. Those scaled rates are what we call "dog years".
ETA: It's late and I might have messed up somewhere in here.
OK. I figured it out....
Growth curves:
Any/all animal grows logrithmically from birth to some pre-adolescent body state. The chart above represents the growth of a human baby over 2 years in head size/circumference, which should match body size.
The logrithmic growth would be over the stage of 1 human year, then approach linear for the next year. Let's say the blue dot is the inflection point, at 3 human months.
In your interpretation, dogs would be this same trajectory and rate, just replace "human" with dog in the previous paragraph. And then you would say that "dog years" in referring to a human has the same growth curve at 3 months * 7 (~2 years), and 2 years * 7 (14 years). We know this new calculated rate based on your interpretation of "dog years" is not true, because this graph was built from real human data.
However, if we look at dog growth from birth to pre-adolescent in months...
We see the dog reach post-adolescent and adult stages after 2 years time. Logarithmic body mass increase is in the first 0-2 months, and linear growth is in 2 to 4 months and on to adult body mass (where the cells are empty).
This reflects the dogs growth cycle to adulthood in human/Earth years.
We multiply these growth rates to scale to that of humans. Those scaled rates are what we call "dog years".
ETA: It's late and I might have messed up somewhere in here.
This post was edited on 5/20/19 at 10:28 pm
Posted on 5/20/19 at 10:37 pm to Pectus
Thank you for finally killing this thread 
Posted on 5/20/19 at 11:15 pm to Pectus
quote:OK baw.
OK Kork. You and me.
quote:Well, that should be the end of it, then.
I get what you are saying. I really do. I even like your comparisons with A and B. And then B to C, and then D to B...forgetting A. We're on the same wavelength for the math and proof side.
quote:Yeah, because websites are made by people, and some people are dumbasses and others aren't.
Realize there's an inconsistency with pulling in apps and websites on what the conversion is. Some translate it as one way, and some translate it as another.
quote:Yeah great. And you please know that calling them "dog years" in that context is a misnomer, and you should instead call them "human years".
Please know that the whole point to aging a dog from human/Earth years to "dog years" is to make their lifespan seem as drawn out as ours because we/humans love them.
quote:Uh, by expressing your dog's age in human years, does that not make them seem more human and relatable?
So, explain how your interpretation does that.
Posted on 5/20/19 at 11:19 pm to ReauxlTide222
quote:
So 1 dog year = 1/7 of a human year.
And 1 dog beer = 1/7 of a human beer.
Oh, for frick's sake. I thought you had finally accepted the logic.
For a dog, one year of life = 7 years of aging for a human. Human years. 7 human years is 1 dog year.
For a dog, one beer = 7 beers worth of drinking for a human. Human beers. 7 human beers is 1 dog beer.
Posted on 5/20/19 at 11:21 pm to Korkstand
All good points.
So, then why is "dog years" even a term?
So, then why is "dog years" even a term?
Posted on 5/20/19 at 11:29 pm to Pectus
quote:Because a 21 year old human is 3 in dog years.
So, then why is "dog years" even a term?
Or any other animal can be X years old in dog years. Except a dog. A 1 year old dog is always 1 year old in dog years, no math necessary.
And any animal can be X years old in human years. Except humans. You'd be a fricking weirdo to say you're 25 human years old, and you'd be a fricking weirdo to say a dog is so many dog years old.
Posted on 5/20/19 at 11:29 pm to Pectus
quote:
So, then why is "dog years" even a term?
How else can I joke with a 70 "year old that she's really only 10 in dog years?
Posted on 5/21/19 at 2:02 am to slackster
If you were being honest you know damn well you’d realize what you just posted is bologna not at all how people use the term dog years
Posted on 5/21/19 at 10:34 am to ReauxlTide222
quote:And for the 100th time, people are dumb and use "dog years" wrong. Just accept it, you know we're right.
If you were being honest you know damn well you’d realize what you just posted is bologna not at all how people use the term dog years
Posted on 5/21/19 at 10:37 am to Korkstand
quote:
And for the 100th time, people are dumb and use "dog years" wrong. Just accept it, you know we're right.
Korkstand the last 6 hours
Posted on 5/21/19 at 10:38 am to TH03
Close.
Posted on 5/21/19 at 2:58 pm to ReauxlTide222
Frick, I still cant believe people dont understand this
Same concept as being born on Feb 29th. You actually only have a birthday once every 4 years. So an '80 year old' can humorously say "I'm only 20 in leap years".
Therefore, "dog beers" always has to be the smaller number, when compared to the actual number of human beers
Same concept as being born on Feb 29th. You actually only have a birthday once every 4 years. So an '80 year old' can humorously say "I'm only 20 in leap years".
Therefore, "dog beers" always has to be the smaller number, when compared to the actual number of human beers
Posted on 5/21/19 at 3:13 pm to Pectus
quote:
MOTHER frickING WRONG!!!!
No Colonel Sanders...you're wrong.
a 1 year old dog is the equivalent of a 7 year old human.
therefore, 1 dog year = 7 human years
It's not that complicated.
Posted on 5/21/19 at 3:26 pm to RobbBobb
That is a good way to think about it. Leap years.
Posted on 5/21/19 at 3:34 pm to VinegarStrokes
The problem I see with TH03 and Reauxl, and probably others, is that they are under the impression that "dog years" is some special thing, rather than a phrase made up of two words with actual meaning.
It blows my mind how many people don't see the problem with using "dog years" when talking about both a dog and a person. I mean, I understand the "well that's how people use it so that's what it means, language evolves" argument. But I also understand that that is stupid. Using "dog years" to describe a dog's human equivalent age completely misses the point and removes the meaning from the phrase.
When asked the question "how would you describe a cat's age in terms of a squirrel's lifespan?", the answer is apparently "well people don't do that".
No, we don't do that because we don't care to, but the point of answering the question is to understand that the language can handle the answer. And all it takes is a few seconds to think about how you might make such a comparison to understand the right way to use "dog years" and "human years" when comparing dogs and humans.
It blows my mind how many people don't see the problem with using "dog years" when talking about both a dog and a person. I mean, I understand the "well that's how people use it so that's what it means, language evolves" argument. But I also understand that that is stupid. Using "dog years" to describe a dog's human equivalent age completely misses the point and removes the meaning from the phrase.
When asked the question "how would you describe a cat's age in terms of a squirrel's lifespan?", the answer is apparently "well people don't do that".
No, we don't do that because we don't care to, but the point of answering the question is to understand that the language can handle the answer. And all it takes is a few seconds to think about how you might make such a comparison to understand the right way to use "dog years" and "human years" when comparing dogs and humans.
Posted on 5/21/19 at 3:43 pm to Korkstand
I have understood everything you have put down in this thread.
I appreciate your work.
I appreciate your work.
Posted on 5/21/19 at 3:43 pm to Pectus
1 leap beer = 4 years worth of human beers
Page 11 of 12
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News