posted
Godwin's is the best known, but there are many laws suggesting that the probability of something approaches one as a forum thread's length increases. I therefore propose KoM's observation: "As the length of a thread increases, the probability that someone will refer to a law stating the the probability of something approaches one as thread increases, approaches one".
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
What do you call it when you break KoM's Observation by starting a thread with KoM's Observation instead of waiting for the natural tendencies of the thread's length to increase the probability that someone will refer to a law stating the probability of something approaches one as thread increases, approaches one?
Posts: 2445 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
That doesn't break the observation at all; the observation says nothing about the speed of the increase, nor about the starting point. This thread, indeed, demonstrates that there is a non-zero probability of getting a "KoM's-Observation-post" in the very first post of a thread, but that is not in conflict with the actual observation.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
quote:Originally posted by lem: What do you call it when you break KoM's Observation by starting a thread with KoM's Observation instead of waiting for the natural tendencies of the thread's length to increase the probability that someone will refer to a law stating the probability of something approaches one as thread increases, approaches one?
quote:Originally posted by lem: What do you call it when you break KoM's Observation by starting a thread with KoM's Observation instead of waiting for the natural tendencies of the thread's length to increase the probability that someone will refer to a law stating the probability of something approaches one as thread increases, approaches one?
You fail probability forever.
... Forever? Why, the odds of that are...
Posts: 433 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm pretty sure this law already exists, although I don't have a source on hand for it. I also always thought these laws were remarkably useless since, by definition, the longer a thread goes on the more likely anyone is to mention anything, period, so unless you actually have a more accurate statement than "the chance goes up" you haven't stated anything unique to Nazis or whatever.
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by lem: What do you call it when you break KoM's Observation by starting a thread with KoM's Observation instead of waiting for the natural tendencies of the thread's length to increase the probability that someone will refer to a law stating the probability of something approaches one as thread increases, approaches one?
That's the Hitler Maneuver. Very new. Very controversial.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
