Make your own using our Graph Builder or upload your own files, images or videos. All our charts are user-submitted.
« Previous And In The End | Replicants alive at the end of a film Next »
Make your own using our Graph Builder or upload your own files, images or videos. All our charts are user-submitted.
« Previous And In The End | Replicants alive at the end of a film Next »
Isn’t it “a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush”?
Yet another backwards graph.
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.
It’s not backwards. A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. So its relative worth is twice as much.
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.
lol, your wrong. the graph is of the value of the bird, not the number of birds.
lol. YOU’RE wrong… just because you yourfailed
The key term is “Relative worth”
Sorry, “relative value”, same idea.
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.
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.
The graph’s fine…albeit a bit lacking in humour
(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.
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.
What an interesting conversation that came out, though…
I thought it was a political joke…
It IS a political joke. Wait for the one about Brown.
haha maybe not
what a load of rubbish
almost as bad as not getteing a blue peter badge
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!
Someone has to make a graph about this reply.
Would you need a fourth dimension to represent the third testicle? Oh wait… it’s tenticle! Well, the question still stands.
its what you would expect from a cambridge graduate
Cambridge Standard, second only to chuck
Is not just any old great graph its a sexy grade A graph.
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.
Justin Landeen
this graph is baller. end of discussion.
but the disccusion can go on maria…………
i do agree that the graph is apsolute baller, why not just end the debate.
Yep, thats pretty poor that is.
dont we miss this man, he was a quality maths teacher and this page can become a tribute to the man
any complete IDIOT can see this graph is completely wrong and backwards! take it off the freakin INTERWEBZ!!
…No.
Is anyone else getting really confused by this graph…..?
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.
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.