Comments on: Relative Value of Birds

By: ashitaka42

ashitaka42 — Wed, 12 May 2010 05:59:36 +0000

Dear sir or madam,

Your comment is completely moot due to the learned responses and analysis of those who posted before you. Also, the “freakin INTERWEBZ,” as you deliciously put it, can never forget. It is very much like an elephant in this regard.

Cheers,
–ashitaka42

By: Nickolai

Nickolai — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 02:09:04 +0000

No, it’s wrong. Relative value for the bird in the hand (assuming that’s what the maker meant) is two birds in the bush, which would be right. Then there’s the “bird in the bush part.” Assuming we’re going by relative value, it should be 0.5, not 1, because 1 bird in the hand = 2 birds in the bush, therefore 0.5 birds in the hand = 1 in the bush.

By: MIXIL

MIXIL — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 21:33:32 +0000

lol. YOU’RE wrong… just because you yourfailed

By: Feynix7

Feynix7 — Sat, 24 Jan 2009 08:31:41 +0000

…No.

By: L!Z

L!Z — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 17:03:27 +0000

A bird in the hand is worth 2 in the bush, but that means the one in the hand is twice as valuable — I think the graph is correct.

By: Immy

Immy — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 21:04:35 +0000

Is anyone else getting really confused by this graph…..?

By: not a complete idiot

not a complete idiot — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 22:10:39 +0000

any complete IDIOT can see this graph is completely wrong and backwards! take it off the freakin INTERWEBZ!!

By: former maths student

former maths student — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 20:05:47 +0000

dont we miss this man, he was a quality maths teacher and this page can become a tribute to the man

By: david

david — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 17:21:34 +0000

lol, your wrong. the graph is of the value of the bird, not the number of birds.

By: Schmidtler

Schmidtler — Fri, 30 May 2008 11:22:25 +0000

Yep, thats pretty poor that is.

By: Who let the dogs out

Who let the dogs out — Sun, 25 May 2008 19:14:45 +0000

but the disccusion can go on maria…………

i do agree that the graph is apsolute baller, why not just end the debate.

By: maria

maria — Sat, 24 May 2008 02:44:29 +0000

this graph is baller. end of discussion.

By: AtlJim

AtlJim — Fri, 23 May 2008 13:58:04 +0000

Would you need a fourth dimension to represent the third testicle? Oh wait… it’s tenticle! Well, the question still stands.

By: Gaby

Gaby — Thu, 15 May 2008 13:36:58 +0000

Someone has to make a graph about this reply.

By: Who

Who — Mon, 12 May 2008 22:33:50 +0000

Justin Landeen

By: Lucerin

Lucerin — Mon, 12 May 2008 21:41:58 +0000

It would be easier to understand if it had three axes. One for location, one for value, and one for quantity of birds.

Still, funny.

By: Y12 Maths Student

Y12 Maths Student — Mon, 12 May 2008 07:13:56 +0000

Is not just any old great graph its a sexy grade A graph.

By: Simon

Simon — Sat, 10 May 2008 11:51:54 +0000

Cambridge Standard, second only to chuck

By: Simon Collinson

Simon Collinson — Sat, 10 May 2008 11:32:06 +0000

its what you would expect from a cambridge graduate

By: Chuck Norris's grandmother twice removed

Chuck Norris's grandmother twice removed — Fri, 09 May 2008 16:21:50 +0000

I’ve known maths teachers in my time, clever ones, ridiculously clever ones, very tall ones, not so very hugely massive ones and i don’t think any but one of them would have come up with such a brilliant graph. It got my third tenticle tingling that’s for sure. And by the way, since ‘maths teachers’ are supposed to have written my revision guide, are all the answers in the back deliberate mistakes? Maths teachers these days!

By: joe beasley

joe beasley — Fri, 09 May 2008 10:01:05 +0000

haha maybe not

By: joe beasley

joe beasley — Fri, 09 May 2008 09:54:07 +0000

almost as bad as not getteing a blue peter badge

By: joe beasley

joe beasley — Fri, 09 May 2008 09:51:57 +0000

what a load of rubbish

By: BT

BT — Thu, 08 May 2008 22:07:18 +0000

It IS a political joke. Wait for the one about Brown.

By: momly

momly — Thu, 08 May 2008 03:39:06 +0000

I thought it was a political joke…

By: Athanar

Athanar — Wed, 07 May 2008 15:55:49 +0000

What an interesting conversation that came out, though…

By: Ben Thompson

Ben Thompson — Wed, 07 May 2008 10:27:51 +0000

The point of the saying is that once in the hand, a bird is twice as valuable as one still remaining in the bush, thus the graph is correct. It is my graph. I am a Maths teacher. We don’t get things wrong. When we do it’s a deliberate mistake. The humour is intrinsic to the very graphing (and thus debate that ensues) from such a naff statement.

By: Eck

Eck — Tue, 06 May 2008 23:30:58 +0000

(Bird in Hand)= 2(Birds in Bush)

A bird in the hand is worth twice as much because you need half as many to equal the worth of two in the bush.

By: Ina

Ina — Tue, 06 May 2008 21:38:11 +0000

The graph’s fine…albeit a bit lacking in humour

By: FishyFred

FishyFred — Tue, 06 May 2008 21:24:39 +0000

The graph is correct. Think of it this way: How many birds do you need to have two? If they’re in the hand, you need two. If you’re in the bush, it’s one, because they’re worth twice as much.

By: Leeps

Leeps — Tue, 06 May 2008 20:57:15 +0000

Yeah, it’s totally correct. The Y axis is relative value, and one in the hand is worth two in the bush so for every one in the bush, you have two in the hand.

By: Tarthrin

Tarthrin — Tue, 06 May 2008 19:26:06 +0000

Sorry, “relative value”, same idea.

By: Tarthrin

Tarthrin — Tue, 06 May 2008 19:25:32 +0000

The key term is “Relative worth”

By: FAIL

FAIL — Tue, 06 May 2008 19:16:42 +0000

No, that one’s a fail. “A bird in the hand (One bird in the hand) is worth two in the bush (two birds in the bush).

Totally backwards.

By: Tarthrin

Tarthrin — Tue, 06 May 2008 18:18:20 +0000

It’s not backwards. A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. So its relative worth is twice as much.

By: The X

The X — Tue, 06 May 2008 18:05:42 +0000

No this one’s right.

Relative to the value of one bird, the value of a bird in the hand is worth 2, while the value of a bird in the bush relative to one bird is one.

By: ironcladlou

ironcladlou — Tue, 06 May 2008 17:49:51 +0000

Yet another backwards graph.

By: DvP

DvP — Tue, 06 May 2008 17:33:19 +0000

Isn’t it “a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush”?