Mundane News

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
As has been reported from the inventor of the test & Dr Fauci commented that anything over a 30 cycles was useless, others have placed the limit lower.

That's just basic mathematical theory, really. You inevitably get to a point where doing any more iterations of an experiment or calculation or process is just over-egging the pudding.

Think of it this way:

You take a piece of string and you cut it in half. And then you take one of the halves and halve that, so you now have quarters. You can cut each quarter into eighths, then eighths into sixteenths etc etc etc. You can keep on cutting those pieces into progressively smaller bits, but you get to the point where it's useless cutting them any further even though theory says you can, because in theory, you can do this infinitely. In practice, you can't. Well, unless you start fannying around with an electron microscope...

Plus, in practical situations, you have to decide what is an acceptable margin of error. Because nothing is ever perfect.

But just because something isn't perfect, doesn't mean you throw good, useful data out of the window.
 

classic33

Leg End Member
That's just basic mathematical theory, really. You inevitably get to a point where doing any more iterations of an experiment or calculation or process is just over-egging the pudding.

Think of it this way:

You take a piece of string and you cut it in half. And then you take one of the halves and halve that, so you now have quarters. You can cut each quarter into eighths, then eighths into sixteenths etc etc etc. You can keep on cutting those pieces into progressively smaller bits, but you get to the point where it's useless cutting them any further even though theory says you can, because in theory, you can do this infinitely. In practice, you can't. Well, unless you start fannying around with an electron microscope...

Plus, in practical situations, you have to decide what is an acceptable margin of error. Because nothing is ever perfect.

But just because something isn't perfect, doesn't mean you throw good, useful data out of the window.
I can see just one problem with that. A piece of string was defined, by an American college/technology insitute, as "25% of it original length". Meaning a " piece of string" couldn't be half it's former length.
 
You've been getting it wrong all this time.

Philosophy is the dark side, you know... Best not to go there... :whistle:
 

slowmotion

Quite dreadful
Location
lost somewhere
Having spent a miserable few hours grappling with HMRC's Self Assessment website, I have come to the conclusion that I was never cut out for a career in accountancy.
 

Attachments

  • Accountancy was my life.jpg
    Accountancy was my life.jpg
    136.4 KB · Views: 5
Top Bottom