Sure, mathematically that is possible (for a limited duration of time)--and it's also possible that more are getting obese while the probability of a randomly selected needing more food is decreasing. Importantly the hypothetical that you describe isn't what is happening. Overall the long-term trend is obviously obesity increasing and hunger decreasing.
Sure, mathematically that is possible (for a limited duration of time)
It's possible for an unlimited duration of time, but I'm getting way too pedantic now.
I didn't read the entire unfocused wikipedia article you linked to, but you're not very convincing. These extreme food prices will obviously cause an increase in hunger and malnutrition among the poor. Others might still be getting fatter, but that's beside the point.
It's possible for an unlimited duration of time, but I'm getting way too pedantic now.
No it's not because human lives are a discrete count variable and not continuous or differentiable. You took calculus but didn't really grasp it at a deep enough level to understand where limits work and where they don't. This is fairly typical of educated, STEM individuals who then work in a different field. Think about it for a few minutes, go back and restudy calc I, and you'll realize you are incorrect. Or ask somebody who does understand things like this (e.g. Annelise) to explain it to you.
You're pretty smart, but the problem you have in general is your ego exceeds your capabilities. You need to work on that, and you'll be more at peace with yourself and the world.
These extreme food prices will obviously cause an increase in hunger and malnutrition among the poor
You're just now bringing up this point as a strawman. Reread this conversation and you'll see that was never the point of the discussion. It was always about the extend of the obesity epidemic.
Just saying: obesity can be increasing everywhere, while probability of a randomly selected person needing more food is simultaneously increasing.