Borg Drones vs Jawas

[Robert Walper]

It appears you don't know what "lower limit" means. If it's a true lower limit, then it's impossible for an operational Borg cube to have less than that number of crew. Care to revise your statement?

Perhaps I misunderstand the situation, but I was under the impression that we were discussing the "lower limit" on how many drones a cube could potentially carry, not on how many it actually requires to operate.

At the risk of invoking more aggression on Mike's part, I thought that was what was being discussed too.

Since a cube was known to be able to carry 179,000 drones, that would be the lower limit value for a cube's "maximum complement".

That is what I meant. But I suspect I should've just worded it better, and is more my fault than Mike's.

What you are describing is the cube's minimum crew requirement, which is a different value.

I would submit that requirement and complement are indeed seperate terms in relation to lower and upper limit.

[Darth Wong]

So if you saw a car driving down the highway with 4 people in it, would you say that 4 people is a lower limit for the crew complement of a car, and that any car we see should be assumed to have 4 people in it as a "conservative" estimate?

[The Kernel]

Let's put it this way: the lower limit for the number of people in a car driving down the highway is 1. The upper limit might be as high as 8 or 9, depending on the car. Under no circumstances would you say that if you saw 4 people in a given car, then the lower limit for a car's contents is 4 people.

No, but you could say that the lower limit of the car's maximum occupancy was 4 people. Ted's statement made sense to me...

[Ted C]

The lower limit on its upper limit?

Perhaps, but isn't that exactly what he was trying to define. He wanted to say that the troop capacity of a cube could not be less than a known total that a cube had carried. Would that not defined the "lower limit" on the cube's capacity?

A cube's crew capacity has an upper limit (maximum that the ship can hold) and a lower limit (minimum that it can carry while retaining functionality). Those are the limits which we must use in order to put bounds on the figures which we consider reasonable for any given cube of as-yet unknown capacity.

Yes, but what is the "maximum that the ship can hold"? Has he not shown that that value must be at least 179,000 drones? Has he not therefore determined the lower limit on that value? It may be possible for the cube to carry more, but we're sure it can carry that many, aren't we?

We can also show that 5 "youth drones" can keep a cube going, so you could call that the "lower limit" to operate the cube.

They're separate values with separate lower limits.

[Robert Walper]

Perhaps I misunderstand the situation, but I was under the impression that we were discussing the "lower limit" on how many drones a cube could potentially carry, not on how many it actually requires to operate.

The lower limit on its upper limit? That's a rather bizarre definition of "lower limit", isn't it?

Again, my mistake. Sorry for the misapplication of the term. Once again I must slither into the bottom of the SD.net intelligence pool.

A cube's crew capacity has an upper limit (maximum that the ship can hold) and a lower limit (minimum that it can carry while retaining functionality). Those are the limits which we must use in order to put bounds on the figures which we consider reasonable for any given cube of as-yet unknown capacity.

So my error was in using "complement" as opposed to "capacity", correct?

[Darth Wong]

Let's put it this way: the lower limit for the number of people in a car driving down the highway is 1. The upper limit might be as high as 8 or 9, depending on the car. Under no circumstances would you say that if you saw 4 people in a given car, then the lower limit for a car's contents is 4 people.

No, but you could say that the lower limit of the car's maximum occupancy was 4 people. Ted's statement made sense to me...

Except that we were not arguing about "maximum occupancy". We were arguing about how many drones were in a particular cube. Please keep your red herrings to yourself; this thread suffers from enough pollution already.

[Ted C]

So if you saw a car driving down the highway with 4 people in it, would you say that 4 people is a lower limit for the crew complement of a car, and that any car we see should be assumed to have 4 people in it as a "conservative" estimate?

I wouldn't be saying that.

I would say that that model carry has a passenger capacity of at least 4, therefore the lower limit on how many people it can carry is four.

I know from experience that one person can operate a car, so that would be the lower limit how many people are required to operate one.

[Darth Wong]

Perhaps, but isn't that exactly what he was trying to define. He wanted to say that the troop capacity of a cube could not be less than a known total that a cube had carried. Would that not defined the "lower limit" on the cube's capacity?

Except that it would then be a complete red herring, since he was using it as the basis for a "conservative" estimate of the crew complement. One does not use a "lower limit of an upper limit" as the basis of a conservative estimate.

[Darth Wong]

So if you saw a car driving down the highway with 4 people in it, would you say that 4 people is a lower limit for the crew complement of a car, and that any car we see should be assumed to have 4 people in it as a "conservative" estimate?

I wouldn't be saying that.

I would say that that model carry has a passenger capacity of at least 4, therefore the lower limit on how many people it can carry is four.

I know from experience that one person can operate a car, so that would be the lower limit how many people are required to operate one.

So if some guy sees 1 person get out of a car, and has no idea whether there's anyone else inside, would you accept Robert's assertion that there's probably 3 more people inside?

[Ted C]

Let's put it this way: the lower limit for the number of people in a car driving down the highway is 1. The upper limit might be as high as 8 or 9, depending on the car. Under no circumstances would you say that if you saw 4 people in a given car, then the lower limit for a car's contents is 4 people.

No, but you could say that the lower limit of the car's maximum occupancy was 4 people. Ted's statement made sense to me...

Except that we were not arguing about "maximum occupancy". We were arguing about how many drones were in a particular cube. Please keep your red herrings to yourself; this thread suffers from enough pollution already.

And that's where Robert really made his mistake. He was trying to use the cube's maximum occupancy to somehow establish the number of drones on the FC sphere, and that doesn't work.

[Robert Walper]

Ok, my head is hurting...all I was trying to say was that a Borg cube has been seen to be able to hold at least 179,000 Borg. What am I missing here? Other than my misapplication of lower limit terminology? Did I, or didn't I? *clutches head* arrr....

[Ted C]

So if some guy sees 1 person get out of a car, and has no idea whether there's anyone else inside, would you accept Robert's assertion that there's probably 3 more people inside?

Absolutely not. He hasn't done anything to establish that there was a large number of drones on the FC sphere. I've obviously led this thread off track, since I never intended to imply that I agreed with his estimate of the number of drones that would be involved in the Borg-Jawa conflict.

[Ted C]

Ok, my head is hurting...all I was trying to say was that a Borg cube has been seen to be able to hold at least 179,000 Borg. What am I missing here? Other than my misapplication of lower limit terminology? Did I, or didn't I? *clutches head* arrr....

You brought it into the argument when it didn't serve any purpose. It didn't help you establish a number of drones for the debate at hand.

[Robert Walper]

No, but you could say that the lower limit of the car's maximum occupancy was 4 people. Ted's statement made sense to me...

Except that we were not arguing about "maximum occupancy". We were arguing about how many drones were in a particular cube. Please keep your red herrings to yourself; this thread suffers from enough pollution already.

And that's where Robert really made his mistake. He was trying to use the cube's maximum occupancy to somehow establish the number of drones on the FC sphere, and that doesn't work.

Um...pardon me, but wasn't I trying to use the said sphere's volume, with another sphere's witnessed crew capacity to try and gauge potential crew capacity of said FC sphere? While at the same time admitting actual crew complement wasn't known?

Did I really fuck up that badly in application of terminology and meaning?

[Robert Walper]

So if some guy sees 1 person get out of a car, and has no idea whether there's anyone else inside, would you accept Robert's assertion that there's probably 3 more people inside?

Absolutely not. He hasn't done anything to establish that there was a large number of drones on the FC sphere. I've obviously led this thread off track, since I never intended to imply that I agreed with his estimate of the number of drones that would be involved in the Borg-Jawa conflict.

I don't think anyone is misinterpreting what you mean in that context Ted. I'm not anyhow.

I'm honestly getting really confused here...at what point was I asserting the crew complement of the FC sphere could be known with any degree of certainty?

All I was trying to do is submit something(theoritically) other than "we don't know how many Borg were on the sphere".

[Darth Wong]

Um...pardon me, but wasn't I trying to use the said sphere's volume, with another sphere's witnessed crew capacity to try and gauge potential crew capacity of said FC sphere? While at the same time admitting actual crew complement wasn't known?

Except that you did not admit it was unknown; you claimed that 11,000 was a "conservative" estimate. This is like taking a bus which can hold 100 people, scaling it down to a car, and concluding that any given car must have 6 people in it as a "conservative" estimate.

Did I really fuck up that badly in application of terminology and meaning?

Yes.

[Darth Wong]

Just to refresh your memory:

It should be noted that a 179 thousand drone crew complement is in fact a lower limit for Borg cubes

You made this statement in defense of your assumption that the Jawas would be vastly outnumbered.

[Spanky The Dolphin]

Did I really fuck up that badly in application of terminology and meaning?

Walper, you just plain fucked up with everything in general...

[Techno_Union]

I Say the Borg sees a sand crawler coming towards them and they give their modified speech, "Lower your ramps and surrender your vehicle. We will add your biological and technological distinctions to our own; your culture, zzzt, errr” The Borg are trampled over by the sand crawler’s treads and the Jawas take what they can from them.

Seriously though, the Borg would be outnumbered if all the Jawas tried to get the Borg then eventually the Borg will be destroyed. Or the Borg just assimilate all of them. I voted the Jawas though.