"Homer" wrote in message
...
LRod wrote:
On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 09:23:12 -0600, Duane Bozarth
wrote:


LRod wrote:
...

Sorry how? "Better-safe-than-sorry" is only reasonable advice when
there is a possibility, even remote possibility of an event occuring.
In the cas of a single home shop dust explosion in a plastic pipe
ducted system there is ZERO chance. ...

Well, the conclusion of the article is to quote..

"...home shop DC explosions are somewhere between extraordinarily rare
and nonexistent."

That is not precisely zero...

While rare, railing at such extremes is just not warranted...


Oh, WELL. I stand corrected.

Given, however, that my point was that it was fruitless to expend
resources in pursuit of "preventing" an occurance that is "somewhere
between extraordinarily rare and nonexistent," it seems I've been
vindicated.

Picking fly **** out of pepper over whether it's actually zero or just
really, really close to it is to obscure the bigger truth.



Not really.

Making statements like "zero chance" obscures truth very nicely.

That, and your "bucket of water" example was truly laughable.


Was it, or did you just not understand it? Please give the exact percentage
chance for the said bucket of water bursting into flames.

--
If at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving

On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 16:49:26 GMT, "TBone"
wrote:



That, and your "bucket of water" example was truly laughable.


Was it, or did you just not understand it? Please give the exact percentage
chance for the said bucket of water bursting into flames.

I'd settle for a reasonable estimate. I'd bet a large amount of money
the answer will have "zero" as part of it: "approaches zero," "nearly
zero," "greater than zero, but..." are probabilities that come
immediately to mind.


- -
LRod

Master Woodbutcher and seasoned termite

Shamelessly whoring my website since 1999

http://www.woodbutcher.net

On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 17:37:15 +0000, LRod
wrote:

On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 16:49:26 GMT, "TBone"
wrote:



That, and your "bucket of water" example was truly laughable.


Was it, or did you just not understand it? Please give the exact percentage
chance for the said bucket of water bursting into flames.

I'd settle for a reasonable estimate. I'd bet a large amount of money
the answer will have "zero" as part of it: "approaches zero," "nearly
zero," "greater than zero, but..." are probabilities that come
immediately to mind.


- -
LRod


you could get that bucket of water to make quite a nice big 'ol
explosion- but you'll have to crack the oxygen from the hydrogen
first. if you can do that in your garage, then I'm really happy I
don't live next door to you.

wrote in message
...
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 17:37:15 +0000, LRod
wrote:

On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 16:49:26 GMT, "TBone"
wrote:



That, and your "bucket of water" example was truly laughable.


Was it, or did you just not understand it? Please give the exact
percentage
chance for the said bucket of water bursting into flames.

I'd settle for a reasonable estimate. I'd bet a large amount of money
the answer will have "zero" as part of it: "approaches zero," "nearly
zero," "greater than zero, but..." are probabilities that come
immediately to mind.


- -
LRod


you could get that bucket of water to make quite a nice big 'ol
explosion- but you'll have to crack the oxygen from the hydrogen
first. if you can do that in your garage, then I'm really happy I
don't live next door to you.

Yea, but then it wouldn't be water anymore.

THAT is an accurate way of expressing it. Finally.

The point is, bonehead, that the "bucket of water" example has nothing
whatsoever to do with woodworking, dust collection, dust explosions, or
anything else even remotely relevant.

Obviously, I cannot state, with certainty, the chances of anything
bursting into flame. Nor can you. Conversely, you cannot state, with
certainty, that something will "never" burst into flame.
It's not a question of flammability but of precision in meaning.

On 26 Jan 2005 11:02:38 -0800, "Gus" wrote:

The point is, bonehead, that the "bucket of water" example has nothing
whatsoever to do with woodworking, dust collection, dust explosions, or
anything else even remotely relevant.

Obviously, I cannot state, with certainty, the chances of anything
bursting into flame. Nor can you. Conversely, you cannot state, with
certainty, that something will "never" burst into flame.
It's not a question of flammability but of precision in meaning.

Apparently, bonehead, you think that the laws of physics are just
suggestions. There are all sorts of certainties. Water not bursting
into flame in your shop is one of them.

If you don't get the connection of that illustration to woodworking
and the myth of the exploding home shop dust collection system, then
you are apparently just skimming the posts to find something to argue
about.


- -
LRod

Master Woodbutcher and seasoned termite

Shamelessly whoring my website since 1999

http://www.woodbutcher.net

Exactly which "laws of physics" cover flaming buckets of water?
Can you name one or provide a citation ?

On 26 Jan 2005 12:41:18 -0800, "Gus" wrote:

Exactly which "laws of physics" cover flaming buckets of water?
Can you name one or provide a citation ?

Water doesn't burn. Look it up.

- -
LRod

Master Woodbutcher and seasoned termite

Shamelessly whoring my website since 1999

http://www.woodbutcher.net

On 26 Jan 2005 11:02:38 -0800, Gus wrote:
The point is, bonehead, that the "bucket of water" example has nothing
whatsoever to do with woodworking, dust collection, dust explosions, or
anything else even remotely relevant.

Who are you talking to? There's this really cool thing called "including
enough context so people can follow the conversation".

"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...
On 26 Jan 2005 11:02:38 -0800, Gus wrote:
The point is, bonehead, that the "bucket of water" example has nothing
whatsoever to do with woodworking, dust collection, dust explosions, or
anything else even remotely relevant.

Who are you talking to? There's this really cool thing called "including
enough context so people can follow the conversation".


And AOL thinks it's a good thing that people today are developing more of a
chat room mentality and less of the type of dialog that usenet was built on.
--

-Mike-

I believe that he is talking to me.

--
If at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving


"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...
On 26 Jan 2005 11:02:38 -0800, Gus wrote:
The point is, bonehead, that the "bucket of water" example has nothing
whatsoever to do with woodworking, dust collection, dust explosions, or
anything else even remotely relevant.

Who are you talking to? There's this really cool thing called "including
enough context so people can follow the conversation".

"Gus" wrote in message
oups.com...
The point is, bonehead, that the "bucket of water" example has nothing
whatsoever to do with woodworking, dust collection, dust explosions, or
anything else even remotely relevant.

Obviously, I cannot state, with certainty, the chances of anything
bursting into flame. Nor can you. Conversely, you cannot state, with
certainty, that something will "never" burst into flame.
It's not a question of flammability but of precision in meaning.


Hey Gus - include the text you're replying to will ya? It's impossible to
follow who you are replying to when you cut the original text and just post
your reply. Most people do not keep the entire thread tree visible in their
newsreaders and without that there's no way to know who you're speaking to.
In fact, it can really make it difficult to understand the context of a
reply.
--

-Mike-

On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 15:51:57 -0500, Mike Marlow wrote:

Hey Gus - include the text you're replying to will ya? It's impossible to
follow who you are replying to when you cut the original text and just post
your reply.

Yeah, I tried too, but he seemed not to get the hint.

Hey Gus - include the text you're replying to will ya? It's
impossible to
follow who you are replying to when you cut the original text and
just post
your reply.


Sorry boys, the old quote button was malfunctioning.

I must have violated one of them thar "laws of physics" that LRod is
always prattling on about.

"Gus" wrote in message
oups.com...
Hey Gus - include the text you're replying to will ya? It's
impossible to
follow who you are replying to when you cut the original text and
just post
your reply.


Sorry boys, the old quote button was malfunctioning.

I must have violated one of them thar "laws of physics" that LRod is
always prattling on about.


C'mon Gus - none of that stuff now. Hell, there's been enough of folks
taking shots at other folks in replies to others lately. Most unpleasant.
A good shot should always be thrown directly - it says so right in the hand
book. Anyway - thanks for including the text.

--

-Mike-

"Gus" blabbered on in message
oups.com...
The point is, bonehead, that the "bucket of water" example has nothing
whatsoever to do with woodworking, dust collection, dust explosions, or
anything else even remotely relevant.

Starting off with name calling I see. That just shows the strength (or lack
of) of your argument. Like I said, you simply don't understand. The point
is GUS, that there are some things that can be said with 100% certainty and
the bucket of water was an example. Unless the laws of physics are
different in your world, water in its liquid state cannot burn so there is a
100% certanity that a bucket of water sitting in your garage WILL NOT burst
into flames.


Obviously, I cannot state, with certainty, the chances of anything
bursting into flame. Nor can you.

Sure I can. If you actually studied a few facts, you could as well.

Conversely, you cannot state, with
certainty, that something will "never" burst into flame.
It's not a question of flammability but of precision in meaning.

I guess that the laws of physics don't apply in your world or are you trying
to justify this crap with the chaos theory of variables. The fact is that
many of these variables are so rare that they become statistically
insignificant and are treated as non-existent. Simple facts say clearly
that a bucket of WATER will never burst into flames and if something were to
contaminate it and make it flammable, then it is no longer just a bucket of
water now, is it? The same can be said for explosions in a home shop dust
collection system. The mixture and conditions simply are not there to cause
an explosion and if you introduce variables that don't exist in a normal
home shop, then you are not dealing with a home shop dust collection system
anymore.

--
If at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving

TBone wrote:
"Gus" blabbered on in message
oups.com...

The point is, bonehead, that the "bucket of water" example has nothing
whatsoever to do with woodworking, dust collection, dust explosions, or
anything else even remotely relevant.


Starting off with name calling I see. That just shows the strength (or lack
of) of your argument. Like I said, you simply don't understand. The point
is GUS, that there are some things that can be said with 100% certainty and
the bucket of water was an example. Unless the laws of physics are
different in your world, water in its liquid state cannot burn so there is a
100% certanity that a bucket of water sitting in your garage WILL NOT burst
into flames.


Obviously, I cannot state, with certainty, the chances of anything
bursting into flame. Nor can you.


Sure I can. If you actually studied a few facts, you could as well.


Conversely, you cannot state, with
certainty, that something will "never" burst into flame.
It's not a question of flammability but of precision in meaning.


I guess that the laws of physics don't apply in your world or are you trying
to justify this crap with the chaos theory of variables. The fact is that
many of these variables are so rare that they become statistically
insignificant and are treated as non-existent. Simple facts say clearly
that a bucket of WATER will never burst into flames and if something were to
contaminate it and make it flammable, then it is no longer just a bucket of
water now, is it? The same can be said for explosions in a home shop dust
collection system. The mixture and conditions simply are not there to cause
an explosion and if you introduce variables that don't exist in a normal
home shop, then you are not dealing with a home shop dust collection system
anymore.



I sure wish you and/or LRod would elaborate on these "Laws of Physics"
you're always quoting with such alacrity.

There's all kinds of them, you know, conservation of mass, conservation
of energy.....do a little fact checking yourself, TBone.

Homer

On 26 Jan 2005 11:02:38 -0800, "Gus" wrote:

The point is, bonehead, that the "bucket of water" example has nothing
whatsoever to do with woodworking, dust collection, dust explosions, or
anything else even remotely relevant.

Obviously, I cannot state, with certainty, the chances of anything
bursting into flame. Nor can you. Conversely, you cannot state, with
certainty, that something will "never" burst into flame.
It's not a question of flammability but of precision in meaning.

Actually, that is not precisely true. Probability theory comprehends the
fact that there are events for which the probability of occurence is
exactly zero as well as events for which the probability of occurence is
exactly 1. In the case of what you are citing above, one can, with
absolute certainty state that the probability of a container of helium
bursting into a chemical flame is exactly zero since helium is an inert gas
and will not combine with oxygen to combust. Another example of absolute
certainty: conservation of mass in chemical reactions. These are events
for which the probabilities don't approach zero or approach one, they can
be stated as being identically equal to zero or one.




+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

The absence of accidents does not mean the presence of safety

Army General Richard Cody

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

Mark & Juanita wrote:
On 26 Jan 2005 11:02:38 -0800, "Gus" wrote:


The point is, bonehead, that the "bucket of water" example has nothing
whatsoever to do with woodworking, dust collection, dust explosions, or
anything else even remotely relevant.

Obviously, I cannot state, with certainty, the chances of anything
bursting into flame. Nor can you. Conversely, you cannot state, with
certainty, that something will "never" burst into flame.
It's not a question of flammability but of precision in meaning.


Actually, that is not precisely true. Probability theory comprehends the
fact that there are events for which the probability of occurence is
exactly zero as well as events for which the probability of occurence is
exactly 1. In the case of what you are citing above, one can, with
absolute certainty state that the probability of a container of helium
bursting into a chemical flame is exactly zero since helium is an inert gas
and will not combine with oxygen to combust. Another example of absolute
certainty: conservation of mass in chemical reactions. These are events
for which the probabilities don't approach zero or approach one, they can
be stated as being identically equal to zero or one.




I don't agree.

You could say "empirical evidence suggests it won't happen" or
"experience shows us it won't happen".

Stating a probability as exactly identical to zero is inherently incorrect.

Steve Decker wrote:


I don't agree.

You could say "empirical evidence suggests it won't happen" or
"experience shows us it won't happen".

Stating a probability as exactly identical to zero is inherently incorrect.

Insert "of an empirical event" after the word "probability" in the
last sentence and I agree. Logically false (as opposed to empirically
false) statements do have a zero probability of being true.

"A and B and (A implies not B)" has a zero probability of being true.

But as someone said, we are picking fly specs out of pepper here. I
think LRod cited an interesting article pointing out the baselessness
of concerns about dust explosions from ducting. While he might have
slightly overstated the article's conclusions, those who are reacting
negatively to his absolutism (and I tend to be one who so reacts) are
missing or avoiding the message of the cited article.
--
Alex -- Replace "nospam" with "mail" to reply by email. Checked infrequently.

In article ,
Steve Decker wrote:
Mark & Juanita wrote:
On 26 Jan 2005 11:02:38 -0800, "Gus" wrote:


The point is, bonehead, that the "bucket of water" example has nothing
whatsoever to do with woodworking, dust collection, dust explosions, or
anything else even remotely relevant.

Obviously, I cannot state, with certainty, the chances of anything
bursting into flame. Nor can you. Conversely, you cannot state, with
certainty, that something will "never" burst into flame.
It's not a question of flammability but of precision in meaning.


Actually, that is not precisely true. Probability theory comprehends the
fact that there are events for which the probability of occurence is
exactly zero as well as events for which the probability of occurence is
exactly 1. In the case of what you are citing above, one can, with
absolute certainty state that the probability of a container of helium
bursting into a chemical flame is exactly zero since helium is an inert gas
and will not combine with oxygen to combust. Another example of absolute
certainty: conservation of mass in chemical reactions. These are events
for which the probabilities don't approach zero or approach one, they can
be stated as being identically equal to zero or one.




I don't agree.

You could say "empirical evidence suggests it won't happen" or
"experience shows us it won't happen".

Stating a probability as exactly identical to zero is inherently incorrect.

You have a single die (a regular hexahedron, with the faces labeled "1", "2",
"3", "4", "5", and "6".

What is the probability of rolling a "7" ?

I do believe that saying "exactly identical to zero" _would_ be an accuracte
answer.

I'll willingly agree that the _question_ could be considered 'inherently
incoherrent'. *grin*

Probabilities are measured on a scale of 0 to 1.

Even a "zero" probability is not an indication that an event will never
happen.

A zero probability states that an even "almost never" happens. A
probability of one states that an event "almost always" happens.

Therefore, probability theory would state that, while the probability
of rolling a 7 is zero, there is still a chance (however small) of it
occuring.

Let me put this another way. Prior to 9/11/2001, most Americans would
have said that the probability of two airliners striking both towers of
the World Trade Center within minutes of each other and destroying
both, was zero.

Yet, it DID happen.

LRod actually did make a cogent point in one post that he was willing
to settle for a "reasonable estimate". That is actually a good way of
explaining the situation.

The lesson to be learned here is to refrain from making absolute
statements like "zero chance".

Gus

On 27 Jan 2005 07:33:42 -0800, "Gus" wrote:

Probabilities are measured on a scale of 0 to 1.

Even a "zero" probability is not an indication that an event will never
happen.

A zero probability states that an even "almost never" happens. A
probability of one states that an event "almost always" happens.

Therefore, probability theory would state that, while the probability
of rolling a 7 is zero, there is still a chance (however small) of it
occuring.

Let me put this another way. Prior to 9/11/2001, most Americans would
have said that the probability of two airliners striking both towers of
the World Trade Center within minutes of each other and destroying
both, was zero.

Yet, it DID happen.

LRod actually did make a cogent point in one post that he was willing
to settle for a "reasonable estimate". That is actually a good way of
explaining the situation.

The lesson to be learned here is to refrain from making absolute
statements like "zero chance".

The problem with this analysis is that it attempts to compare two
entirely different hypotheses. While the events of 9/11 were certainly
unthinkable and had, even if considered, an extremely low probability,
the fact is all of the mechanisms to make it a an eventual reality
were always in place.

In the case of the six sided die, there isn't any chance, not one,
zero of a seven coming up. It isn't physically possible. There are
only six choices--six possibilities. A seventh possibilty does not
exist. There is zero chance for it to occur.

But obviously six (or seven) events is too complex for some of our
members. Let's make it simple. The classic example for demonstrating
probability is tossing a coin. Whenever the event is postulated it is
always expressed as, "what is the possible outcome of a coin toss," or
words to that effect. The answer of course is either "heads" or
"tails."

One can then calculate and demonstrate all of the probability
machinations one wants on the probability of any particular toss,
however, if one were to say the probability of a toss coming up turkey
feathers (or cream of tartar) is zero but could still occur is utter
nonsense since turkey feathers is not in the set of possible outcomes.
There is zero chance of getting turkey feathers from a coin toss.

In order for there to be probabability there must be possibility. The
burning helium mentioned earlier is an example. Can't happen. The laws
of physics (or more accurately, chemistry) dictate this. One can't
even express a probability of it happening.Those who don't know where
to find these "laws of physics" need read no further; the rest will be
far too complex.

I made my point about an estimate because I knew it must include the
word "zero" which is what seems to have so many up in arms.

Now, having said all of that, I will concede this: "zero chance" or
absolutism, as one of my fans described, may not be technically
accurate when measured to the painfully smallest degree. However, if
you are living life in a real world, breathing real air, eating real
food, driving real cars on real streets, hey, if you're woodworking
with real wood and real tools, then you are already engaging in
countless activities all of which have probabilities of danger orders
of magnitude higher than an explosion of dust in a home shop dust
collection system. That anyone would pick the demonstrably miniscule
potential of that event on which to take a stand on personal risk
management makes me double over in mirth.


- -
LRod

Master Woodbutcher and seasoned termite

Shamelessly whoring my website since 1999

http://www.woodbutcher.net

Gus wrote:

Probabilities are measured on a scale of 0 to 1.

Even a "zero" probability is not an indication that an event will never
happen.

A zero probability states that an even "almost never" happens. A
probability of one states that an event "almost always" happens.

Therefore, probability theory would state that, while the probability
of rolling a 7 is zero, there is still a chance (however small) of it
occuring.

This isn't a math ng, but this is simply wrong...the probability of
generating a value outside the set of possible integral results of any
discrete function is identically zero.

Let me put this another way. Prior to 9/11/2001, most Americans would
have said that the probability of two airliners striking both towers of
the World Trade Center within minutes of each other and destroying
both, was zero.

Yet, it DID happen.

After which the probability was identically one...the problem here is
that a hunch or opinion is not a mathematical probability and much
experiment has been done to show that people hold opinions of
likelihoods of events that are far from being mathematically
consistent...but, given the question you posed I don't really think most
would have actually said "zero" but given something on the order of
"highly unlikely".

LRod actually did make a cogent point in one post that he was willing
to settle for a "reasonable estimate". That is actually a good way of
explaining the situation.

The lesson to be learned here is to refrain from making absolute
statements like "zero chance".

Except, of course, when there really is zero chance, which in the case
of the potential for dust explosions is not identically zero. This
assertion detracts significantly from the point attempted to being made
as a cogent argument--it just isn't.

"Gus" wrote:

Probabilities are measured on a scale of 0 to 1.

Even a "zero" probability is not an indication that an event will never
happen.

A zero probability states that an even "almost never" happens. A
probability of one states that an event "almost always" happens.

Therefore, probability theory would state that, while the probability
of rolling a 7 is zero, there is still a chance (however small) of it
occuring.

That's a pretty novel understanding of probability theory! How large
does the chance of something happening have to be before its
probability gets to be non-zero? G

Let me put this another way. Prior to 9/11/2001, most Americans would
have said that the probability of two airliners striking both towers of
the World Trade Center within minutes of each other and destroying
both, was zero.

Yet, it DID happen.

Which is dramatically different from what you said before. You seem to
be confusing the probability of an event with what most Americans
would say the probability of that event was.

LRod actually did make a cogent point in one post that he was willing
to settle for a "reasonable estimate". That is actually a good way of
explaining the situation.
yep. And maybe that "reasonable estimate" is 1/1000th of the
probability of all life on Earth being destroyed in an asteroid hit.
Risks like that I can live with!

The lesson to be learned here is to refrain from making absolute
statements like "zero chance".

I agree.
--
Alex -- Replace "nospam" with "mail" to reply by email. Checked infrequently.

On 27 Jan 2005 07:33:42 -0800, "Gus" wrote:

Probabilities are measured on a scale of 0 to 1.

Even a "zero" probability is not an indication that an event will never
happen.


True, see my other post

A zero probability states that an even "almost never" happens. A
probability of one states that an event "almost always" happens.


This is imprecise and incorrect

Therefore, probability theory would state that, while the probability
of rolling a 7 is zero, there is still a chance (however small) of it
occuring.


No, in a set consisting of the elements {1,2,3,4,5,6} not only does the
probability of selecting a 7 from that set = 0, it is an impossible event
since 7 is not *in* the set.


Let me put this another way. Prior to 9/11/2001, most Americans would
have said that the probability of two airliners striking both towers of
the World Trade Center within minutes of each other and destroying
both, was zero.

Yet, it DID happen.


This is confusing fact and opinion. The answer to the question, do you
think this will happen and getting the answer, "no" is an opinion. The
facts were a) the twin towers exist in physical space on Earth, b)
airliners are capable of flying within the atmospheric envelope and spatial
area occupied by the twin towers, c) there is no physical barrier to
airliners and the twin towers spatially intersecting one another. A more
apt analogy for the impossible event would be, "can airliners strike two
lunar landing sites within minutes of each other and destroy those historic
sites?" There, the answer is the impossible event because a) airliners are
incapable of operation the vacuum of space, and b) airliners do not have
the sufficient thrust to leave the gravitational field of the earth.


LRod actually did make a cogent point in one post that he was willing
to settle for a "reasonable estimate". That is actually a good way of
explaining the situation.

The lesson to be learned here is to refrain from making absolute
statements like "zero chance".

Gus



+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

The absence of accidents does not mean the presence of safety

Army General Richard Cody

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 07:36:23 -0500, Steve Decker
wrote:

Mark & Juanita wrote:
On 26 Jan 2005 11:02:38 -0800, "Gus" wrote:

.... snip

I don't agree.

You could say "empirical evidence suggests it won't happen" or
"experience shows us it won't happen".

Stating a probability as exactly identical to zero is inherently incorrect.

Alright, stepping into the realm of pedantry: From the axiomatic
definitions of probabilty theory (Papoullis, Probability, Random Variables,
and Stochastic Processes),
"The probability of an event a is a number P(a) assigned to this event.
This number obeys the following three postulates:
I. P(a) is positive: P(a) = 0
II The probability of the certain event equals 1: P(S) = 1
III. If a and b are mutually exclusive, then: P(a + b) = P(a) + P(b)"
[Version I have at home is McGraw-Hill 1965 version, page 7]

Note: from (I), P(a) = 0 is a valid probability. For the examples
stated, "a bucket of water bursting into flame", or "a unit of helium
bursting into flame", or "conservation of mass in a chemical reaction
holds" the probability of these events can be stated to be zero. Unless
you are going to imply that the laws of physics and chemistry are muteable
--- if that is the case, then the whole fundamental fabric of science and
technology is essentially destroyed. i.e., there is no, zero, zilch, zip,
nada chance that helium will burn (i.e. oxidize) in an chemical reaction --
helium is an inert gas, it cannot combine with oxygen, it *will not* burn.
This is more than "empirical evidence", it is a fundamental element of the
chemical nature and properties of elements. If we can say that there is
some non-zero probability that elements will behave willy-nilly contrary to
their fundamental chemical and nuclear properties, we are wasting our time
with science and technology. Thus, in these cases, one can indicate that
the probability of those events occuring P(a) = 0, and in addition, the
probablity of those events occuring are the impossible event. Further,
from II, it is also possible to have a certain event, for which the
probability = 1.

It is also important to note that one must distinguish between the
impossible event, and those events with probability = 0. For example, the
probability P(t = t1) = 0 may be true, but not necessarily an impossible
event. Same is true that even though the probability of an event = 1,
this is not necessarily the certain event. However, for the impossible
event P(a) = 0, and for the certain event P(a) = 1. But this is a side
detour to the original statement. The fact is that it is *not* inherently
incorrect to state that a probability is exactly identical to zero.





+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

The absence of accidents does not mean the presence of safety

Army General Richard Cody

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 20:34:11 -0700, Mark & Juanita
wrote:

.... snip

Note: from (I), P(a) = 0 is a valid probability. For the examples
stated, "a bucket of water bursting into flame", or "a unit of helium
bursting into flame", or "conservation of mass in a chemical reaction
holds"

oops, that should have either been the certain event P(a) = 1, or restated
as "conservation of mass in a chemical reaction does not hold" P(a) = 0.



the probability of these events can be stated to be zero. Unless
you are going to imply that the laws of physics and chemistry are muteable
--- if that is the case, then the whole fundamental fabric of science and



+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

The absence of accidents does not mean the presence of safety

Army General Richard Cody

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

On Friday 28 Jan 2005 3:34 am, Mark & Juanita scribbled:


Note: from (I), P(a) = 0 is a valid probability. For the examples
stated, "a bucket of water bursting into flame", or "a unit of helium
bursting into flame", or "conservation of mass in a chemical reaction
holds" the probability of these events can be stated to be zero.
Unless you are going to imply that the laws of physics and chemistry
are muteable --- if that is the case, then the whole fundamental
fabric of science and
technology is essentially destroyed. i.e., there is no, zero, zilch,
zip, nada chance that helium will burn (i.e. oxidize) in an chemical
reaction -- helium is an inert gas, it cannot combine with oxygen, it
*will not* burn.

To add to the pedantry, if the quantum effect of neutron decay happened
all at once in the bucket (a negligible but not zero probability), the
helium could be changed into deuterium and/or berillium and/or lithium
and hence burst into flames. Hence, the probability is not zero.

--
Luigi
Replace "nonet" with "yukonomics" for real email
www.yukonomics.ca/wooddorking/humour.html
www.yukonomics.ca/wooddorking/antifaq.html

On 26 Jan 2005 11:02:38 -0800, "Gus" wrote:

The point is, bonehead, that the "bucket of water" example has nothing
whatsoever to do with woodworking, dust collection, dust explosions, or
anything else even remotely relevant.

Obviously, I cannot state, with certainty, the chances of anything
bursting into flame. Nor can you. Conversely, you cannot state, with
certainty, that something will "never" burst into flame.
It's not a question of flammability but of precision in meaning.


his point, though was that the odds of your dust collection system
exploding- in your garage- are about the same as the odds of a bucket
of water exploding -in your garage.

and he's right.

s wrote:

....
his point, though was that the odds of your dust collection system
exploding- in your garage- are about the same as the odds of a bucket
of water exploding -in your garage.

and he's right.

But he masked the point by the assertion of zero for both...which
probably means some will just write off the message as well as the
messenger...

On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 11:49:52 -0600, Duane Bozarth
wrote:

wrote:

...
his point, though was that the odds of your dust collection system
exploding- in your garage- are about the same as the odds of a bucket
of water exploding -in your garage.

and he's right.

But he masked the point by the assertion of zero for both...which
probably means some will just write off the message as well as the
messenger...



if a little enthusiasm for the argument is gonna kill the message,
you'd better shut down usenet right now.

sure, he probably should have goven odds of a few billion to one
rather than zero. either way, he was closer to truth than you are.

s wrote:

.....

sure, he probably should have goven odds of a few billion to one
rather than zero. either way, he was closer to truth than you are.

Actually, I've never said anything about the actual numerical value, but
I would assert that it is 0 which would put my estimate closer...

My chief complaint is the assertion of no possible problem in any
system, sight unseen that is implicit in the proposition. The reference
he quotes, in fact, says specifically it can't be totally ruled out, but
is merely highly unlikely for home-shop systems, anyway.. If people say
that, I'll not complain a lick...if the claim the problem is totally
non-existent I'll continue to think that unsupportable.

"Duane Bozarth" wrote in message
...
s wrote:

....

sure, he probably should have goven odds of a few billion to one
rather than zero. either way, he was closer to truth than you are.

Actually, I've never said anything about the actual numerical value, but
I would assert that it is 0 which would put my estimate closer...

My chief complaint is the assertion of no possible problem in any
system, sight unseen that is implicit in the proposition. The reference
he quotes, in fact, says specifically it can't be totally ruled out, but
is merely highly unlikely for home-shop systems, anyway.. If people say
that, I'll not complain a lick...if the claim the problem is totally
non-existent I'll continue to think that unsupportable.

With all of the dust collectors in use in home shops and the fact that not a
single instance can be found of this happening, this it is safe too say that
it simply will not happen and until even a single instance occurs, anything
else really is nothing more than paranoia.

--
If at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving

"Duane Bozarth" wrote in message
...
s wrote:

...
his point, though was that the odds of your dust collection system
exploding- in your garage- are about the same as the odds of a bucket
of water exploding -in your garage.

and he's right.

But he masked the point by the assertion of zero for both...which
probably means some will just write off the message as well as the
messenger...

Why do you say this? Not everyone believe in the absolutely no absolutes BS
like some in here. There are things that are simply not going to happen ad
some like me believe more in statistical significance. If the chance is so
small that it becomes insignificant, this it simply has no chance. I can't
speak for you but I have things of real significance to worry about.

--
If at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving

s wrote:
On 26 Jan 2005 11:02:38 -0800, "Gus" wrote:


The point is, bonehead, that the "bucket of water" example has nothing
whatsoever to do with woodworking, dust collection, dust explosions, or
anything else even remotely relevant.

Obviously, I cannot state, with certainty, the chances of anything
bursting into flame. Nor can you. Conversely, you cannot state, with
certainty, that something will "never" burst into flame.
It's not a question of flammability but of precision in meaning.



his point, though was that the odds of your dust collection system
exploding- in your garage- are about the same as the odds of a bucket
of water exploding -in your garage.

and he's right.


Not the point

On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 14:17:07 -0500, Steve Decker
wrote:

wrote:
On 26 Jan 2005 11:02:38 -0800, "Gus" wrote:


The point is, bonehead, that the "bucket of water" example has nothing
whatsoever to do with woodworking, dust collection, dust explosions, or
anything else even remotely relevant.

Obviously, I cannot state, with certainty, the chances of anything
bursting into flame. Nor can you. Conversely, you cannot state, with
certainty, that something will "never" burst into flame.
It's not a question of flammability but of precision in meaning.



his point, though was that the odds of your dust collection system
exploding- in your garage- are about the same as the odds of a bucket
of water exploding -in your garage.

and he's right.


Not the point


his or yours?