- 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 6:20 pm to moneyg
Posted on 5/20/19 at 6:20 pm to moneyg
quote:Yeah we don't agree, because my definition makes sense and theirs does not.
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.
quote:But no, because OP has defined "dog years" incorrectly, his math is absolutely backwards.
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.
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.
3
Posted on 5/20/19 at 6:21 pm to ReauxlTide222
quote:
Are dog earth years and human years not the same thing?
No. 1 year for a dog is like 7 for you.
This post was edited on 5/20/19 at 6:27 pm
Posted on 5/20/19 at 6:24 pm to TH03
quote:My thoughts exactly.
Jesus
fricking
Christ
Posted on 5/20/19 at 6:26 pm to Korkstand
quote:I’m not sure you get to determine the definition of the term. It is what it is, right?
Yeah we don't agree, because my definition makes sense and theirs does not.
Y’all don’t get to change it.
Posted on 5/20/19 at 6:29 pm to slackster
quote:Incorrect.
No. 1 year for a dog is like 7 for you
*waits to be laughed at for the source*
Posted on 5/20/19 at 6:30 pm to Korkstand
quote:Because dog years has a definition and you aren’t using correctly
So when a dog is 7 years old, how can anyone argue that he's not also 7 "dog years" old?
Posted on 5/20/19 at 6:31 pm to Korkstand
Wait, there are people actually defending the OP on this one? Good God almighty!
Approximate number of days to walk:
Human - 365
Dog - 14
Years to reproduce:
Human - 13
Dog - 2
Months of gestation:
Human - 9
Dog - 2
years of life:
Human - 70
Dog - 12
In comparison to humans, the dog number is always the smaller number. ALWAYS. So if you've had 7 beers as a human, you can humorously say that its only been 1 dog beer.
/thread
Approximate number of days to walk:
Human - 365
Dog - 14
Years to reproduce:
Human - 13
Dog - 2
Months of gestation:
Human - 9
Dog - 2
years of life:
Human - 70
Dog - 12
In comparison to humans, the dog number is always the smaller number. ALWAYS. So if you've had 7 beers as a human, you can humorously say that its only been 1 dog beer.
/thread
Posted on 5/20/19 at 6:33 pm to Korkstand
quote:Oh for frick’s sake
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
Posted on 5/20/19 at 6:33 pm to ReauxlTide222
quote:I didn't determine the definition of the term myself. It is a very simple term that defines itself, logically. Or so I thought.
I’m not sure you get to determine the definition of the term. It is what it is, right?
quote:We are not changing it. We are trying our damnedest to explain why our definition is the only one that makes sense.
Y’all don’t get to change it.
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 on 5/20/19 at 6:35 pm to RobbBobb
quote:A 10 year old dog is 70 in dog years.
In comparison to humans, the dog number is always the smaller number. ALWAYS
The dog years is the much bigger number.
Posted on 5/20/19 at 6:39 pm to Korkstand
quote:There isn’t a term for the concept of converting the aging process of a human to a dog.
Using "dog years" when converting human->dog AND dog->human doesn't make any sense!
There’s only a term for the concept of converting the aging process of a dog to a human.
Posted on 5/20/19 at 6:40 pm to ReauxlTide222
quote:
Because dog years has a definition and you aren’t using correctly
Right back at ya.
Yeah, "dog years" has a definition, and it means an animal's age expressed as an equivalent age of a dog. When applied to a human, it's about 7 to 1 (7 year old human is 1 dog year old). When applied to a dog, it's 1 to 1 (1 year old dog is 1 dog year old).
Likewise, "human years" has a definition, and it means an animal's age expressed as an equivalent age of a human. When applied to a dog, it's about 1 to 7 (1 year old dog is 7 human years old). When applied to a human, it's 1 to 1 (1 year old human is 1 human year old).
This is really simple shite if you just think about what you're saying.
Posted on 5/20/19 at 6:44 pm to ReauxlTide222
quote:quote:
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
Oh for frick’s sake
If you're talking about a human and you say he's so many human years old, what the frick does that mean? Nothing! But if you're talking about a human and you say he's so many dog years old, now you understand that we're talking about converting the age to another animal.
So when you are talking about a dog and you say he's so many dog years old, what the frick does that mean? It only means something because you assume the comparison is to a human's lifespan. Like I said, a valid assumption, but still only an assumption. Because the term is used incorrectly.
Posted on 5/20/19 at 6:45 pm to ReauxlTide222
quote:
A 10 year old dog is 70 in dog years.
The dog years is the much bigger number.
That's dumb. Think about what you just said. A 10 year old dog is 70 in human years.
Dogs don't live to be 70 years old. 70 dog years makes zero sense. None whatsoever.
The ONLY way the saying makes any sense st all is if a dog year = 7 human years.
Saying a 70 year old human is 490 in dog years is laughablly dumb and illogical. That human is 10 in dog years. A 10 year old dog and a 70 year old human have lived the same amount of their available lives. Trying to argue otherwise is futile.
Posted on 5/20/19 at 6:47 pm to Korkstand
quote:
A period of time in the life of dogs, defined such that the average life expectancy of a dog in "dog years" is numerically equivalent to the average life expectancy of a human. A 4- and a 5-year-old dog are about as mature as a human of 28 to 30 years and 33 to 35 years, respectively.
quote:
By the first set of definitions, a 6-year-old dog would be described as having an age of 6 human years or 40–50 dog years.
Posted on 5/20/19 at 6:49 pm to ReauxlTide222
quote:
There isn’t a term for the concept of converting the aging process of a human to a dog.
Sure there is. It's "dog years".
quote:You think that there is only a term for that because you've been using "dog years" incorrectly your whole life. If instead you would say a dog is so many "human years" old, you might see that it works for any two animals. Assuming, of course, that you define the term correctly.
There’s only a term for the concept of converting the aging process of a dog to a human.
Posted on 5/20/19 at 6:50 pm to ReauxlTide222
quote:
A 10 year old dog is 70 in dog years.
70 in human years sport.
The dog number IS ALWAYS the lower number in comparison to humans. There is no arguing that point. Ever
Posted on 5/20/19 at 6:50 pm to slackster
quote:No, I promise you it’s still 10 in human years.
Think about what you just said. A 10 year old dog is 70 in human years.
Posted on 5/20/19 at 6:51 pm to ReauxlTide222
quote:
*waits to be laughed at for the source*
Posted on 5/20/19 at 6:52 pm to ReauxlTide222
quote:
ReauxlTide222
Post the rest of that Wiktionary clip...
Page 8 of 12
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News