3 ms·
But those people are dead. So if you count up all the live legs, which will be slightly less than 2*live people, and then add in the dead legs, this may be some
by unanswered 5y ago
But those people are dead. So if you count up all the live legs, which will be slightly less than 2*live people, and then add in the dead legs, this may be somewhat more than 2*live people. And since the humor in GP comment is attributing the "having" of the legs to the owners of the cadavers, the denominator remains 'live people'. Thus the average number of legs to "have" is greater than 2.
- moralestapia 5y agoWhy do you count dead legs, but choose not to count the bodies they're attached to? Or if you chop them ... does the rest of the body cease to exist?
- Ekaros 5y agoAnd if some of this chopping happens. Is it more likely that the legs or body is destroyed? I would guess that more of the bodies are stored than the legs... But now if we extend to organs, heads and brains... How do we calculate those? Like do we need complete sets, or something less? Or is sufficient mass enough to count as one unit.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- croon 5y agoBecause the dead person they were attached to doesn't answer polls, nor own much of anything. But I suppose a live person can also own a bunch of torsos. The statement however only pertained to legs.