Sucks if you are one of them, though.
And really, 3%, in epidemiology, is a lot. Certainly far from negligible.
Doing more math:
3000/4800 * 3% = 1.875%
Indeed.
That said, and recognizing that it’s fraught with traps, I’d define it here as a logical deduction from, or within, a consistent set of rules, axioms, etc.
In the Kelvin(!) example above for instance, his proof was true. The problem was that the axioms of the system he was using didn’t include the notion of nuclear reactions. So although his truth followed from the then current understanding of the laws of physics (the axioms), those laws (axioms) were incomplete and didn’t correspond to physical reality.
IIRC, it was once proven (using extensive charts and graphs of maximum lung capacity, muscle length and speed of neural impulses and whatnot) that it was impossible for a human to run a 4-minute mile.
It was once impossible for any team in any sport to win a 7 game series after being down 0-3. I believe at one point the 0-3 team lost around 200 consecutive series.
Not really in the same neighborhood, but before Roger Bannister broke the four-minute mile, all kinds of physicians and others “proved” humans were physically incapable of running that fast.
True, his time was 3:59; the next instance was 3:57 (different runner, not sure how much later). I’m sure you folks will have the better term, but to my mind, “3 seconds faster,” falls under the heading of, “the stop-watch guy may have been a little hung-over that day.”
turtles can not only fly, they can apparently read the minds of wonder mutts. :
:
Prior to the Great Depression of the 1930’s, economists believed that such a depression was impossible. Based on well-established economic theories (commonly called “classical economics” now), and supported by all the math, it was considered that an economy would naturally tend towards a state of “maximal productivity” (or nearly so). Any deviation from this would set in motion a series of negative feedbacks, all tending to push the economy back towards an equilibrium state of high productivity. This was also the argument for a pure market-based economy without any artificial government interference.
When the Great Depression hit, and further, when it persisted for several years, economists were dumbfounded. This was simply NOT how an economy could possibly behave, and they had well-established mathematical models to prove it!
Enter John Maynard Keynes. He was able to come up with an alternate self-consistent mathematical model of how an economy could work that was different from the then-standard model. In his model, it was possible for an economy to fall into a stable mode at any level of productivity, even a low level. It explained what was going on the the real world at the time. And the Keynsian model did something more: It offered a prescription for how to break out of the stable depressed economy. That prescription called for massive government deficit spending during periods of depression to goose the economy and get it going again. This was the Roosevelt’s justification for all the public spending programs of the Depression era.
Oh, on to sports, it was once thought impossible for anyone to high jump over 6 feet, before the Fosbury Flop. The current record is 8’ 02".
Joe Dimaggio’s 56 game hitting streak is currently considered unbreakable, but they said the same thing about scoreless innings and season/career homeruns.
Matt Prater’s 64 yard field goal is pretty long, but a 70 yarder is most likely impossible because no team in their right minds would even try it, same like a hundred yard pass.
109 yards is the longest possible kick return because we can’t measure anything smaller by rule. Therefore, this should be easily broken the second they change the rule.
Currently, no NFL player can play more than 20-24 (plus preseason) games in a single season. This will change of course once another game is added to the schedule.
Films:
It was thought previously that a science fiction film would never win for Best Picture Academy awards because for many years they weren’t even allowed to be nominated for the category. Star Wars, the Matrix, etc. were routinely snubbed from being nominated. This ended in 2009 with the nomination of Avatar. Now, even though one has been nominated, there has never been a winner.
Non-US films were also shut out until The King’s Speech and The Artist.
Women weren’t allowed to be heroines until 1979’s Halloween. I Spit On Your Grave (1979) was considered an indie film and/or the heroine was considered mentally unbalanced.
I can’t find a cite for a black male actor kissing a white actress in film, so this is still impossible.
The sinkability of the Titanic?
Yes. But IMHO any reasonable definition has to go beyond “it was once generally believed,” which is a lot of what’s being posted here.
If something was “proved,” you ought to be able to describe or link to the proof itself.
The ones I posted about sports and films use proof in the form of “overwhelming evidence to the contrary.” If something has happened hundreds, thousands, or hundreds of thousands of times without a single example to the contrary, that would be one definition of “impossible” that is generally accepted in the social sciences.
Did they kiss in Guess Who’s Coming To Dinner?
Interestingly, most of the sources I found say it was never shown on screen.
I think it depends upon how you frame the question.
For example we all say 2 plus 2 equals 4 but a mathematician can prove thats not always so. But just because their are variations to given rule doesnt make it generally untrue.
List of films with black actors kissing white actresses: http://www.jeffandcorey.com/EGIL.html
I guess The Lord of the Rings (nominated in 2001 and 2002 and won Best Picture in 2003) doesn’t count as science fiction? How about Star Wars, which was nominated for Best Picture in 1977, and E.T., nominated in 1982.
As for non-US winners, Bridge on the River Kwai won Best Picture in 1957. Lawrence of Arabia won in 1962, followed by Tom Jones in 1963. A Man for All Seasons won in 1966 and Oliver! won in 1968. Chariots of Fire won in 1981, followed by Gandhi won in 1982. The Last Emperor won in 1987. I won’t count The English Patient (1996) and Shakespeare in Love (1998) as they were joint US/UK productions.
Nitpick: Star Wars was indeed nominated for Best Picture in 1977. Also, A Clockwork Orange received a nomination in '71, and E.T. in '82. But you’re correct that those were the only sci-fi Best Picture nominees before Avatar, District 9, Inception, Gravity, etc.
Where are you getting these factoids? If by “heroine” you just mean any central female character who the story revolves around, then there were plenty of movies before 1979. OTOH, if you’re limiting your definition to the action/sci-fi/horror/thriller genres, then Alien came out in 1979, Rosemary’s Baby came out in 1968… eh, we could come up with a whole list of these in any genre you want. The US movie industry may not make nearly as many movies with female leads as they do male leads, but there have still been movies with female leads dating back to the early days of Hollywood.
No. They also don’t count as war movies, doilies, or floor polish.
These do, however.
Anyway, the OP’s question isn’t as interesting as the OP probably imagines. Proof is a concept relevant to mathematics, and in this case it would be a proof which follows from the axioms laid out by a specific mathematical model. Everyone knows mathematical models are imperfect reflections of reality, so deriving a factually incorrect but logically sound proof from one merely means the model is flawed in some specific way, which probably isn’t that interesting: You’ll know which parts of reality you hand-waved away to arrive at a mathematically tractable model.