# How man7 arms/legs do I have? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [August 23, 2009, 12:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-man7-arms-legs-do-i-have/507355 "2009-08-23T00:35:17Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 16\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![copperwindow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/4af34b/32.png) [@copperwindow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/copperwindow)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2009, 5:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-man7-arms-legs-do-i-have/507355/41 "2009-08-24T17:18:32Z")
> [@Exapno\_Mapcase](#): > > Technically correct but linguistically meaningless. If you say that, you can also correctly say that your arms and legs are in a 114 to 114 ratio or 189383409832480 to 189383409832480 ratio. It drives any statement that includes that into the ground instantly. Unless you have a context in which putting arms to legs at eight to eight makes sense, then no reader will accept it as correct. Well, this may be so, however **Colibri** seems to think that you are incorrect. ---
**Author:** ![copperwindow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/4af34b/32.png) [@copperwindow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/copperwindow)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2009, 5:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-man7-arms-legs-do-i-have/507355/42 "2009-08-24T17:21:27Z")
> [@copperwindow](#): > > Well, this may be so, however **Colibri** seems to think that you are incorrect. And I happen to think that he’s right. ---
**Author:** ![cmkeller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cmkeller/32/118_2.png) [@cmkeller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cmkeller)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2009, 5:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-man7-arms-legs-do-i-have/507355/43 "2009-08-24T17:37:20Z")
Maybe the OP is the Vitruvian Man. ---
**Author:** ![tr0psn4j](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/958977/32.png) [@tr0psn4j](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tr0psn4j)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2009, 6:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-man7-arms-legs-do-i-have/507355/44 "2009-08-24T18:06:51Z")
> [@Lord\_Mondegreen](#): > > [nitpick] > “Google” is a company, “googol” is a number. > [/nitpick] What about half a Yahoo over a Yahoo? ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2009, 8:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-man7-arms-legs-do-i-have/507355/45 "2009-08-24T20:21:55Z")
> [@Colibri](#): > > Since you are talking about a ratio between physical, discrete objects, I would say it is wrong. … The ratio is equal, but it is not the same. Yes, Colibri certainly agrees with you. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![Snickers](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/5daacb/32.png) [@Snickers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snickers)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2009, 9:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-man7-arms-legs-do-i-have/507355/46 "2009-08-24T21:05:14Z")
As has been said, yes, you probably could use 8:8 as the ratio you have, but it’s misleading. Also technically accurate would be 5:5 or 7:7, so why don’t you want to use those? And there’s your answer as to why it’s misleading. ---
**Author:** ![panache45](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/panache45/32/64_2.png) [@panache45](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/panache45)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2009, 5:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-man7-arms-legs-do-i-have/507355/47 "2009-08-25T05:45:28Z")
I think the answer may be [here](http://www.atshq.org/forum/showthread.php?p=166414). ---
**Author:** ![Colibri](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/colibri/32/1841_2.png) [@Colibri](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Colibri)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2009, 4:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-man7-arms-legs-do-i-have/507355/48 "2009-08-25T16:36:34Z")
> [@copperwindow](#): > > Well, this may be so, however **Colibri** seems to think that you are incorrect. > [@copperwindow](#): > > And I happen to think that he’s right. > [@Exapno\_Mapcase](#): > > Yes, Colibri certainly agrees with you. > > :rolleyes: **Copperwindow** , I have no idea why you think I would consider **Exapno** to be wrong, since he said much the same as I did. If I am correct, he is also correct. If you are talking specifically about arms and legs, a 2:2 ratio is meaningful. An 8:8 ratio, while mathematically equivalent, _means something different_ linguistically, and is meaningless in that context. So stating a ratio of arms to legs as 8:8 is incorrect. ---
**Author:** ![afishinsea](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9de0a6/32.png) [@afishinsea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/afishinsea)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2009, 1:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-man7-arms-legs-do-i-have/507355/49 "2009-08-26T01:37:09Z")
> [@Colibri](#): > > **Copperwindow** , I have no idea why you think I would consider **Exapno** to be wrong, since he said much the same as I did. If I am correct, he is also correct. > > If you are talking specifically about arms and legs, a 2:2 ratio is meaningful. An 8:8 ratio, while mathematically equivalent, _means something different_ linguistically, and is meaningless in that context. So stating a ratio of arms to legs as 8:8 is incorrect. I disagree with this assessment. Linguistically, the question asks about a _ratio_ and not a count. If you believe that a ratio is linguistically bound to the count of the objects being compared, then it would also be incorrect to state: “The ratio of women to men in India is approximately 930 women to 1000 men.” source: [Platinum Slot: Tempat Terbaik untuk Bermain Slot Online](http://www.jhuccp.org/igwg/presentations/Monday/SubplenC/MenAgainst.pdf) The actual count of women and men in India is obviously much higher than 930 and 1000, nor is this a fully simplified fraction. However, the above statement doesn’t seem misleading because we are accustomed to speaking about populations using ratios. The real reason that the 8 arms to 8 legs ratio seems misleading is simply that there is not currently any reason to discuss the ratio using any other numbers than the actual count of the arms and legs in question. However, this does not make the statement incorrect, but merely confusing. One could argue that choosing to be confusing when a clearer wording is readily available is being incorrect (the argument discussed earlier about getting points taken off on a homework assignment for choosing to use 8/8 instead of 1/1), but correctness and clarity are different characteristics. ---
**Author:** ![Colibri](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/colibri/32/1841_2.png) [@Colibri](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Colibri)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2009, 3:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-man7-arms-legs-do-i-have/507355/50 "2009-08-26T03:28:20Z")
> [@afishinsea](#): > > The real reason that the 8 arms to 8 legs ratio seems misleading is simply that there is not currently any reason to discuss the ratio using any other numbers than the actual count of the arms and legs in question. However, this does not make the statement incorrect, but merely confusing. One could argue that choosing to be confusing when a clearer wording is readily available is being incorrect (the argument discussed earlier about getting points taken off on a homework assignment for choosing to use 8/8 instead of 1/1), but correctness and clarity are different characteristics. I think the disagreement mainly arises in that we are using different evaluations of what constitutes “incorrect.” In my book, I would say that the statement is not merely confusing or unclear, but incorrect since there is no logical reason to use it. It is rather like being asked what color a black dog is, and saying “no color.” While this is technically correct, unless one is trying to illustrate a point about optics there is no reason to state it that way. In my view this is not merely unclear, it is incorrect in normal parlance. YMMV, for different values of “incorrect.” ---
**Author:** ![afishinsea](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9de0a6/32.png) [@afishinsea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/afishinsea)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2009, 5:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-man7-arms-legs-do-i-have/507355/51 "2009-08-26T05:40:09Z")
> [@Colibri](#): > > I think the disagreement mainly arises in that we are using different evaluations of what constitutes “incorrect.” In my book, I would say that the statement is not merely confusing or unclear, but incorrect since there is no logical reason to use it. It is rather like being asked what color a black dog is, and saying “no color.” While this is **technically correct** , unless one is trying to illustrate a point about optics there is no reason to state it that way. In my view \*\*this is not merely unclear, it is incorrect \*\*in normal parlance. YMMV, for different values of “incorrect.” How can a statement be both technically correct and also be incorrect? Why not just use a different qualifier to express your opinion about the lack of apparent reason used for an unneccarily bemuddling statement? It seems as though you have a punitive mentality with regards to the statement, as though it should not be given any label which could be construed as “positive”, since it seems clear that it sought to be intentionally misleading. I think it is important to separate one’s overall appreciation of any entity which is being evaluated (be it a viewpoint, work of art, statement, etc.) from any particular characteristic which comprises that overall appreciation. ---
**Author:** ![cmyk](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cmyk/32/3353_2.png) [@cmyk](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cmyk)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2009, 6:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-man7-arms-legs-do-i-have/507355/52 "2009-08-26T06:57:08Z")
**copperwindow,** you haven’t sufficiently explained where you got the number _eight_ from. I’m confused why you wouldn’t just say 2:2 (two arms : two legs) or reduce that to 1:1. What’s up with that? Care to offer some context, because now you’re squabbling over something very petty, unconventional and rather moot. You baffle me. ---
**Author:** ![Bosda\_Di\_Chi\_of\_Tricor](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bosda_di_chi_of_tricor/32/16845_2.png) [@Bosda\_Di\_Chi\_of\_Tricor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bosda_Di_Chi_of_Tricor)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2009, 10:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-man7-arms-legs-do-i-have/507355/53 "2009-08-26T10:09:23Z")
How does the 17/23 correlation fit into this? 😃 😛 ---
**Author:** ![Colibri](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/colibri/32/1841_2.png) [@Colibri](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Colibri)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2009, 3:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-man7-arms-legs-do-i-have/507355/54 "2009-08-26T15:16:57Z")
> [@afishinsea](#): > > How can a statement be both technically correct and also be incorrect? Why not just use a different qualifier to express your opinion about the lack of apparent reason used for an unneccarily bemuddling statement? It seems as though you have a punitive mentality with regards to the statement, as though it should not be given any label which could be construed as “positive”, since it seems clear that it sought to be intentionally misleading. I think it is important to separate one’s overall appreciation of any entity which is being evaluated (be it a viewpoint, work of art, statement, etc.) from any particular characteristic which comprises that overall appreciation. Like I say, YMMV. In my view, the statement is incorrect. If you want to construe that as being “punitive,” all I can do is shrug. ---
**Author:** ![Pasta](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ecccb3/32.png) [@Pasta](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pasta)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2009, 6:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-man7-arms-legs-do-i-have/507355/55 "2009-08-26T18:45:23Z")
I would claim that a ratio given as A:B has two interpretations in our language, depending on whether the ratio is reduced or not. Reduced: relative values are indicated, and one should not necessarily ascribe any meaning to the actual values A and B. Not reduced: relative value are indicated, and one can take the values A and B as representing the actual underlying quantities. If I give the ratio of AFC to NFC teams in the NFL, I could say it in two ways: (a) 1:1, which tells you that the two conferences have the same number of teams. (b) 16:16, which tells you that the two conferences have the same number of teams, and that that number is 16. Anything else would be as incorrect as saying: “I run jump.” While you _could_ say “I run jump”, and I would have a guess as to what you might be talking about, it just isn’t an English sentence even by extreme descriptionist standards. For the ratios (as with anything), one can deviate from the above pattern if one establishes this with context. But on its own, “I have an 8:8 arms:legs ratio” is broken. As with many language things, though, this can be reduced to a prescriptionist versus descriptionist difference. A prescriptionist might well claim that it _should_ be okay to say “8:8”, but a descriptionist would point out that that’s beside the point since it isn’t how people actually use the language. ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2009, 12:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-man7-arms-legs-do-i-have/507355/56 "2009-08-27T00:28:05Z")
> [@Colibri](#): > > While the average number of heads per capita is _exactly_ one. Or eight, for every eight. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-man7-arms-legs-do-i-have/507355.md?page=2)