[quote=CRGreathouse;174695]Not really. First, with overwhelming probability, by the time a fly would tunnel though the container would aloready be destroyed -- quantum processes alone would suffice, and normal environmental exposure long before that. But even if that doesn't happen (say, the container is repaired at regular intervals), the tunneling probability is strongly dependent on the type of fly: less-massive flies are far more likely to tunnel.[/quote]

Very informative, but the likelihood of tunneling is irrelevant as is the average waiting time. Only the ability is required, as indicated by the verb 'can' in the statement:

"You can catch a[ny type of] fly by waiting for it to tunnel into the trap."

[QUOTE=__HRB__;174696]Very informative, but the likelihood of tunneling is irrelevant as is the average waiting time. Only the ability is required, as indicated by the verb 'can' in the statement:

"You can catch a[ny type of] fly by waiting for it to tunnel into the trap."[/QUOTE]

I'm claiming:
1. In this context, "trap" is not well-defined.
2. Using any reasonable definition to fix #1, your statement "which does not depend on the type of fly" is wrong. (I take no issue with the earlier existence claim.)

[quote=CRGreathouse;174699]I'm claiming:
1. In this context, "trap" is not well-defined.
2. Using any reasonable definition to fix #1, your statement "which does not depend on the type of fly" is wrong. (I take no issue with the earlier existence claim.)[/quote]

1. In the greater context we're allowed to use an unreasonable definition of trap, because attempting to catch flies with tunneling is unreasonable, justified only for the sake of argument.

2. Can you claim that p( any-type-of-fly @ location-inside-trap ) == 0 ?

[QUOTE=__HRB__;174651]I have no prejudices.[/QUOTE]
:orly emu:

[QUOTE=__HRB__;174702]2. Can you claim that p( any-type-of-fly @ location-inside-trap ) == 0 ?[/QUOTE]

I have not claimed this. Could I claim this? Sure. That wouldn't make it true.

But what has that to do with my claim that the tunneling probability of a fly is *not* independent of its type, contrary to your claim?

[quote=CRGreathouse;174705]But what has that to do with my claim that the tunneling probability of a fly is *not* independent of its type, contrary to your claim?[/quote]

I think we're misunderstanding each other.

Presumably you are arguing that a greater tunneling probability leads to more flies trapped. And I totally agree with this, if we decide to emphasize the quantitative issue.

The tunneling argument was introduced as an over-the-top, p(anything)>0, anything physical *can* happen (however unlikely) argument. As in:

"You *can* catch more X with Y." (Read: It is possible to catch more X with Y).

As this statement is true independent of the value of X and Y, xilman resigned.

[QUOTE=xilman;174687]In my experience, they tend to lay their eggs on many different types of foodstuff, including meat intended for our cats --- much to the distaste of the cats.[/QUOTE]I have ssen them lay eggs on cat meat (on a cat), much to my distaste.

[quote=philmoore;174704]:orly emu:[/quote]


Nice try, but I won't argue with you, so you're still "it". Try picking a fight with xilman. I'm pretty sure he's willing to go the distance with you.

All this talk of catching flies is insensitively conflicting with the precepts of my religion of the day: Jainism

The recent words of some Republicans have me rapidly losing interest in trying to resurrect the GOP, despite my genuine concern that this country needs a balance to the current leftward swing.

I moved away from Tulsa, Oklahoma in 1977, thus barely missing the political rise of Jim Inhofe ([URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Inhofe[/URL]). Senator Inhofe (R - OK) has now just led Republicans in calling Obama's speech in Cairo "un-American" ([URL]http://newsok.com/u.s.-sen.-inhofe-calls-obama-speech-un-american/article/3375137?custom_click=lead_story_title[/URL]). Of course, if the president were Republican, and a Senate Democrat had characterized something the GOP Prez did/said as "un-American", Inhofe would've been outraged.

However, Inhofe's been outraged about outrage (over Gitmo detaineee torture) itself, and he's criticized the Red Cross as a "bleeding heart", so it doesn't take much... He's also used to provoking outrage in others: according to [URL]http://www.dkosopedia.com/wiki/James_Inhofe[/URL] (not an unbiased source),[quote]Inhofe outraged federal employees on the day [April 19, 1995 - cheesehead] of the Oklahoma City bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Building by stating on National television that there probably weren't very many casualties because federal employees wouldn't be at their desks at 9:00 instead they would be off having coffee somewhere.[/quote]

[QUOTE=mdettweiler;173722]I firmly belive that the logical conclusion is that all the order we see in the universe is a result of an intelligent designer's plan.[/QUOTE]
"If an intelligent designer lived on Earth, people would break his windows"

If an intelligent designer did exist, why did he/she/it give humans so many bad characteristics? Why can't people regrow limbs like salamanders? Why can't people fly like birds? Why aren't people as strong as bears? Why can't we swim as fast as sharks or run as fast as horses and cheetahs? Why do we have useless structures like appendices?

You could say that the intelligent designer gave us really good brains, but we're finding out that even our intelligence isn't that great. Computers are beating us at finding prime numbers, playing chess, and recalling facts. Apes, gorillas, and chimps know how to make basic tools and learn sign language, and some of them are even better than college students at memory tests:
[url]http://cbs5.com/health/chimps.memory.humans.2.601356.html[/url]
Also, it took us thousands of years for our intelligence to develop cars, TVs, cell phones, air conditioning, and other modern conveniences. For most of human history, our living standards were at best only a bit above that of most animals.

So, are you struggling to outrun a lion? Are you having difficulty finding the result of (296142*40895) ^ 10? If so, you can blame your intelligent designer for that.