Driver crashes through wall at 80mph and into Thames then wanders off

On 30/10/17 20:45, JNugent wrote:
On 30/10/2017 08:27, TMS320 wrote:
On 30/10/17 01:53, JNugent wrote:
On 30/10/2017 00:51, TMS320 wrote:

On 25/09/17 12:51, JNugent wrote:

...Â* whose owner is 99.99999999% likely

It's a simple maths problem, for goodness' sake.

Here's a starter:
~ If there are 100 people and nobody is uninsured, the percentage of
uninsured is...?
~ If one person is uninsured the percentage is...?

Now, if the answer is 99.99999999%, what is the smallest possible
population?

If you believe that the owners of Very Expensive Cars (in the
£100,000 class, for instance) drive them without insurance, you will
believe anything.

I have expressed no opinion about the number of VECs driven without
insurance. You continue to fail to grasp that it is a comment about
your (lack of) ability at simple maths.

Or else it is possible that you wrote down without
thinking about it (which anyone can do), but, being you, refuse to
acknowledge that you made a mistake.

That is my estimate of the probability that a VEC is being drive WITH
the required insurance.

Well, your estimate is obviously wrong.

Have you a more convincing figure?

I do not know how many VECs are in use. But I don't need to know because
whatever the number, 99.99999999% is mathematically impossible.

And what about a response to this related view?

I can understand someone not understanding why their maths is wrong but
I cannot get my head round the fact that you fail to grasp that my
response to this thread is about your maths.