by **CommenterX** » Tue Jun 14, 2011 1:04 pm

Kaharz wrote:CommenterX wrote:I don't think anyone has addressed this yet:

The way the equation is introduced is incorrect; while the limit as x-->infinity is the way to go for "proving" (anal/logical interpretations be damned) the victimless thing, it is certainly not true that "Percent victims" = k/x as x-->infinity; "Percent victims" actually = k/x*100. The limit as x-->infinity shouldn't be part of that definition.

Throwing in a constant multiplier doesn't actually change the limit.

The constant isn't what matters. The limit shouldn't be part of the definition - otherwise, the "percent victims" is 0 for nearly all values of k (other than +/-infinity). That is, even when one person kills one person, "percent victims" would be 0.

[quote="Kaharz"][quote="CommenterX"]I don't think anyone has addressed this yet:

The way the equation is introduced is incorrect; while the limit as x-->infinity is the way to go for "proving" (anal/logical interpretations be damned) the victimless thing, it is certainly not true that "Percent victims" = k/x as x-->infinity; "Percent victims" actually = k/x*100. The limit as x-->infinity shouldn't be part of that definition.[/quote]

Throwing in a constant multiplier doesn't actually change the limit.[/quote]

The constant isn't what matters. The limit shouldn't be part of the definition - otherwise, the "percent victims" is 0 for nearly all values of k (other than +/-infinity). That is, even when one person kills one person, "percent victims" would be 0.