> pointless, hyperbolic figure is irrelevant
Then why not simply give the correct, still impressive, figure, as I suggested?
> the regeneration is always, 100% a head, if no change in the bioelectrical gradients
This is also a meaningless statement. It's correct 100% of the time, except when something goes wrong and it's not.
Can you quantify the likelihood of something going wrong with the "bioelectrical gradient"? I'm not familiar with this organism but I suspect it's several nines, but less than 7.
In general, probabilities less than a certain amount stop being meaningful, because it's more likely that the model used generate the probability fails to reflect reality. See https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/AJ9dX59QXokZb35fk/when-not-t...
Then why not simply give the correct, still impressive, figure, as I suggested?
> the regeneration is always, 100% a head, if no change in the bioelectrical gradients
This is also a meaningless statement. It's correct 100% of the time, except when something goes wrong and it's not.
Can you quantify the likelihood of something going wrong with the "bioelectrical gradient"? I'm not familiar with this organism but I suspect it's several nines, but less than 7.
In general, probabilities less than a certain amount stop being meaningful, because it's more likely that the model used generate the probability fails to reflect reality. See https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/AJ9dX59QXokZb35fk/when-not-t...