how many people in the world?

[David O'Meara]

sorry, I lost count somewhere around 6 billion.

[Paul Sturrock]

I can see six from where I am sitting. I just looked in the room next to me and found ten more. So if you've not already counted them, that would be minimum 6 billion and sixteen.

[Paul Sturrock]

(Of course, if you have already counted them, I might just be confusing your count)

[Ernest Friedman-Hill]

I know there's me, and my family, and that other guy who lives next door, so I think there's like five.

[Chetan Parekh]

Check this.

[Ashok Mash]

Too many. I wonder what is the delay in starting terraforming Mars and Venus.

[Jeroen T Wenting]

At the moment I've subjective evidence only of one (myself, and I only think I exist, I've no objective way to prove it).

Everyone I see and deal with (including myself) could just be a figment of my immagination, in which case there might well be no people at all.

[Nathan Leniz]

Only one.

It is known that there are an infinite number of worlds, simply because there is an infinite amount of space for them to be in. However, not every one of them is inhabited. Therefore, there must be a finite number of inhabited worlds. Any finite number divided by infinity is as near to nothing as makes no odds, so the average population of all the plantes in the Universe can be said to be zero. From this it follows that the population of the whole Universe is also zero, and that any people you may meet from time to time are merely the products of a deranged imagination.

[fred rosenberger]

It is known that there are an infinite number of worlds, simply because there is an infinite amount of space for them to be in.

I don't agree with this. We DON'T know there is an infinite amount of space. In fact, I thought it was known what the mass of the universe was (which is why we know we can't find 90% of it, or whatever), which would imply to me a finite number of worlds.

I've done no research on this, so someone (I'm talking you YOU, Jim Y.) can feel free to come along and argue I'm wrong.

[Jim Yingst]

I think you may be taking Nathan's post a bit more seriously than intended, fred. I mean, look at the next sentence:

However, not every one of them is inhabited. Therefore, there must be a finite number of inhabited worlds.

Obviously the "therefore" is totally invalid here. Given the premises it would be entirely possible for the number of inhabited worlds to be less than (much less than) the number of worlds, yet still infinite. Despite the dubious initial assertion and faulty logic, however, Nathan seems to have nonetheless arrived at a profound truth: any people you may meet are probably just the products of a deranged imagination.

[Jeroen T Wenting]

either one or both of you missed the origin of that quote.
It's from that wholy remarkable book, the most successful ever to come out the great publishing houses of Ursa Minor, more successful than the encyclopedia galactica, the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy.

[Nathan Leniz]

It appears that the figment of my deranged imagination you all know as Jeroen knows two answers.

I bet he only knows one of the questions though!

And yes, I shamelessly quoted the Guide, as it seemed relevant.

[Devesh H Rao]

Originally posted by Nathan Leniz:
It appears that the figment of my deranged imagination you all know as Jeroen knows two answers.

I bet he only knows one of the questions though!

And yes, I shamelessly quoted the Guide, as it seemed relevant.

I guess he knows the answer to the question too....


Jeroen T Wenting
ranch hand
Member # 122879
posted Tuesday, December 12, 2006 1:59:00 AM
----------------------------------------------------------------------------......................--------------------

42

[Devesh H Rao]

Originally posted by David O'Meara:
sorry, I lost count somewhere around 6 billion.

Wow.... thats a lot of fingers....

I could manage a count of I guess 10.....

[Devesh H Rao]

Originally posted by Nathan Leniz:
Only one.

It is known that there are an infinite number of worlds, simply because there is an infinite amount of space for them to be in. However, not every one of them is inhabited. Therefore, there must be a finite number of inhabited worlds. Any finite number divided by infinity is as near to nothing as makes no odds, so the average population of all the plantes in the Universe can be said to be zero. From this it follows that the population of the whole Universe is also zero, and that any people you may meet from time to time are merely the products of a deranged imagination.

Small correction

Any finite number divided by infinity is as near to nothing as makes no odds, so the average population of all the plantes in the Universe can be said to be tending towards zero. From this it follows that the population of the whole Universe is also tending towards zero, and that any people you may meet from time to time are merely the products of a deranged imagination tending towards hallucination

So it may be quite possible that all this is quite imaginary and I am wasting my time completing my tasks as the probability of my boss existing tends towards zero....... unless I guess during appraisal time [Anomaly in the space-time dimension of universe]....

PS: And I have absolutely no idea what I just typed out there... I am aspiring to be a science fiction writer and as there is only me out there, my book will be a best seller if I can convince myself to read it

[Bhiku Mhatre]

Originally posted by Jim Yingst:
Despite the dubious initial assertion and faulty logic, however, Nathan seems to have nonetheless arrived at a profound truth: any people you may meet are probably just the products of a deranged imagination. [/QB]

Jim,
There is a contradiction here.
The word profound truth does not go hand-in-hand with word probably.

[Rahul Bhattacharjee]

number of people around the world = number of hairs in your head = number of stars.

[Devesh H Rao]

Originally posted by Rahul Bhattacharjee:
number of people around the world = number of hairs in your head = number of stars.

What if someone is bald...?

Does that mean the person does not exist, as then number of people around the world = 0

[Paul Sturrock]

Originally posted by Rahul Bhattacharjee:
number of people around the world = number of hairs in your head = number of stars.

What, exactly?!

[Nathan Leniz]

They have small imaginations?

zero people around the world = zero hairs in your head = zero stars

Wait... that would mean they are the product of another person's imagination. Now we know why hair regrowth products are so popular and all(most) men fear getting bald.

[Devesh H Rao]

Originally posted by Nathan Leniz:
They have small imaginations?

zero people around the world = zero hairs in your head = zero stars

Wait... that would mean they are the product of another person's imagination. Now we know why hair regrowth products are so popular and all(most) men fear getting bald.

Flaw in the assumption

"zero people around the world "
&
another person's

What another person, there is no another... the whole premise falls if the number of people is zero........
[ December 12, 2006: Message edited by: Devesh H Rao ]

[Rahul Bhattacharjee]

Originally posted by Rahul Bhattacharjee:
number of people around the world = number of hairs in your head = number of stars.

Forgot to give the conditions for this equation.
you are not bald.
As you are reading this post , therefore the number of people has to be equal to or more than 2 (as you have not initially posted ,so one poster and one reader).
And for finding the exact number of person we can do two things.One count the start or count the number of hair in head.Choose whichever looks easier to you.

[ankur rathi]

Originally posted by Chetan Parekh:
Check this.

It increases by 3 each second. :roll:

[Neerav Narielwala]

3 per second..

[Chetan Parekh]

Originally posted by Neerav Narielwala:
3 per second..

are you complaining for bad hit ratio?