"You miss 100% of the shots you don't take" is mathematically false

I have seen this quote on one of my friend's social media profile pictures. Given that we are close friends, I see this quote every day I open the software. The more I think about it, the more I think it is false.

Let's say I am a basketball player. I try to shoot 10 times and it goes in 7 times. My accuracy of shots would be 7/10, or 70%, OR 0.7.

Let's say there is a much more qualified player and shoots all 10 in. His shot accuracy would be 10/10, meaning 100% and 1.0.

Now, you shoot 0 and you have 0 going in. What would that be? 0/0. We all know that is undefined. according to the saying itself, 1-100%=0 so this is saying 0/0 is 0.

This saying is false. alright.

I think you're sort of missing the point of the quote

I did not say that it is fundamentally incorrect. I said it is mathematically inaccurate.

In this scenario where you shoot zero times, how many shots did you not take?

Undefined. Idk how to answer that question because there is literally someone in NBA that shot 0 times.

either way, it is a 0/0 problem. 

Oh!

Sluggy Freelance!

Nice!

Have not read it in several years but it popped into my head the other day lol. Should really catch up one of these days.

Technically the shots you don't take is infinite.

Let's say we are on an NBA game, there are plenty oppurtunities for everyone in this world to shoot the hoop, including on the other side of the field or even in the hospital. The problem is further from the hoop, the less likely it is going to go in. There are infinite shots not taken knowing times can be divided infinitely and one shot is only one possibility.

Upon this problem, per every shot you have infinite shots not took.

So we have this: Per infinite theoretical shots, there is one shot taken. Thus, the shot takes 0% of the total pool of probability. However, knowing I am a very bad basketball player, I could miss a shot I don't take consider in the same situation I have seen a senior player shooting it in when I did not even take the shot.

So we got one thing: A shot that we didn't take can still be possible to be in, thus semantically this saying is false. You didn't to it does not mean it is impossible. If so, then I would tell everyone that being a billionaire is utter bollocks.

Define take and after seeing the definition, it would still make this saying false. If the basketball just moves by itself, then it goes in even if you don't take it. Since the saying says the probability of the ball go in when I don't take it is 0%, then this also implies I take part in 100% of shootings, which is false. Not every shot I didn't take is missed.

We could define 'miss' as 'miss out on'.... if we define it that way then failing to take a shot is missing.

We could define 'miss' as 'not succeed at'.... if we define it that way then not taking a shot is missing.

But ...

We could also define 'miss' as 'Aiming and firing but not hitting,.' If we define it that way then not failing due to not even aiming or firing a shot is not missing.

We could also define 'miss' as 'trying and failing' ... if we define it that way then not trying at all isn't missing.

So, here we have at least 2 senses in which you really do miss 100% of the shots you don't take but we also have at least 2 senses when you really don't miss 100% of the shots you don't take.

The moral of the story is that it's important to be very specific about the definition that is being used before you jump to conclusions because sometimes something is true in one sense but not true in another sense.