Here's an explanation for you to ignore and double-down over
Yep.
You don't appreciate the effect of time on the calculation. Granted it also depends on your modelling axioms, but there's a stupid way to do things, and a not-so-stupid one, and calculating temporal rates of change while constraining yourself to discrete probabilities is the stupid way to do things.
It's ok, there are some things that we just lack the tools to evaluate.
> Here's an explanation for you to ignore and double-down over
Yep.
You don't appreciate the effect of time on the calculation. Granted it also depends on your modelling axioms, but there's a stupid way to do things, and a not-so-stupid one, and calculating temporal rates of change while constraining yourself to discrete probabilities is the stupid way to do things.
It's ok, there are some things that we just lack the tools to evaluate.
hahaha, you disproved yourself and showed you don't understand this conversation in one sentence. Good job. The probability has to be a rational number. It therefore must not be continuous.
Number of humans: discrete Number of hungry humans: discrete Number hungry humans / num humans: rational
That the probability could change over time has no bearing on if the probability is discrete or continuous. It will of course be approximately continuous given the large numbers involved, but approximately only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades.
QED
Fallacious logic, but irrelevant to the discussion, so we'll ignore what's wrong with it. It is left as an exercise to the reader.
Your big problem here is trying to get pedantic to defend a stupid point from the beginning. That shows motivated reasoning on your part, a thought pattern that rarely leads to discovering truth. As a side note, good job derailing the conversation and forum sliding.