On divers "mean" meanings

[derannimer <susannahlm@yahoo.com>]

No: HPFGUIDX 51042

If you ask me, we *desperately* need OOP to come out. This is an 
insane thing to be discussing, when you think about it for a minute. 

But at any rate, my two knuts:

First of all, for all those who say that "mean" is used to mean 
(sorry) average: well, yes. Technically speaking, it is. But only in 
mathematics. The word "mean" is *only* used for the *mathematical* 
sense of average. (In fact, the word mean is *completely, utterly 
interchangeable* with the mathematical "average.") And the 
mathematical meaning of "average" is not the one that y'all are 
thinking of. 

So what's the difference between the mathematical "average" and the 
non-mathematical "average"? OK. 

The *non-mathematical* meaning, I would say, is something 
like "Roughly the same as is the norm. That which happens most 
frequently." So that if you say, for example, "Harry is average 
height," what you mean is roughly, "Harry's height is normal. Not a 
lot taller than everyone else, not a lot shorter. Harry is the same 
height as lots of people."  

Now, the *mathematical* meaning of average--the one used 
interchangeably for mean--is the *sum* of all numbers N, divided by 
the *number* of all numbers N. Let's say that we've got 20 boys with 
apples. *loud groans.* One boy has 10001 apples ('K, so he's got very 
big pockets), and the other 19 boys have only one apple each. The 
mathematical average of this would be 10001+1+1+1+1. . . etc. Which 
is  10020/20. Which is 501. So the *mathematical* average is 501. 

But if a boy came along with 501 apples, you wouldn't say, *non-
mathematically speaking," that he had an "average number of apples." 
You wouldn't say that he had "roughly the normal ammount of apples 
for a boy;" or "Roughly as many as the other boys do." I mean, 
obviously he doesn't. He's got 500 more apples than 19 of the other 
boys, and 9500 less than the twentieth. If we were looking for the 
*non-mathematical* average. . . well. We've got 19 boys with 1 apple, 
one with 501, and one with 10001. *Non-mathematically* speaking, the 
average--the *normal*--number of apples is 1. Because *non-
mathematically* speaking, average means "That which is the most 
common." That which is *normal.* And in this example, it's normal for 
a boy to have 1 apple. 

And the mathematical term for *that* concept, for *that non-
mathematical average* is *not* "average." And not "mean." The 
mathematical term for *that* concept is "mode." 

Mode--in all numbers N, the most frequently occuring number N. 

*That's* what we mean when we say "average" in non-mathematical 
conversation. 

But it ain't the mathematical average. So it ain't the mean. 

So that's my first problem with interpreting the word "mean" that 
way; that simply isn't what it, you know, means. 

My second problem with the interpretation is: Huh?

I mean, if he's "average" (I may just say "mode;" it's less confusing)

If Harry is average/mode/normal height, then why did Trelawney bother 
commenting on it? I just don't get that. 

Also, as Falcon rightly points out, we've heard over and over again 
in the books that Harry is short. If he suddenly got taller. . . 
wouldn't he tell us so?  




Derannimer (who probably got *all* of this wrong, and who had an 
example--sans apples--that sounded less like what you did in the 2nd 
grade, but *it,* unfortunately, was 

A. Not my own idea, 

and

B. Blatantly political. (Hint: tax cuts.)

So so much for *that.*)