How many times more Tour Finals titles does Federer have than Nadal?

[Deleted member 688153]

Bit of a mathematics question I guess

Fed has six (6) titles so far there, but 6*0 = 0.

Dividing by zero is also impossible. You could say that 6/0 = infinity (infinitely times more titles), but I don't think it's technically correct to say that x/0 = infinity. It's undefined.
So he just has undefined times more titles? We can't answer the question? I'm not satisfied with that.

Maybe something more accessible:
How many percent (%) more titles does he have?
100% more? 600% more?

To me "100% more" basically implies "twice as many" in most situations.
So "100% more" would be 1% of the original amount (Nadal's WTF title count), times 100, added to the original amount. In other words, 200% of the original amount. Multiplying by two.

How does that play out though?
2 times Nadal's WTF titles = 2*0 = 0 again.
600% would be 6*0 = 0 as well.

You could say "100% more" in the more informal sense that one has > 0 (some) and the other has 0 (none), but then it would remain 100% no matter how many Federer ended up getting, so long as the value is > 0, which doesn't make mathematical sense.

Is there a better way to quantify this?

 

[Djokovic2011]

I see you've succumbed too mate. A case of if you can't beat the trolls, join 'em, right?

 

[Antonio Puente]

Bit of a mathematics question I guess

Fed has six (6) titles so far there, but 6*0 = 0.

Dividing by zero is also impossible. You could say that 6/0 = infinity (infinitely times more titles), but I don't think it's technically correct to say that x/0 = infinity. It's undefined.
So he just has undefined times more titles? We can't answer the question? I'm not satisfied with that.

Maybe something more accessible:
How many percent (%) more titles does he have?
100% more? 600% more?

To me "100% more" basically implies "twice as many" in most situations.
So "100% more" would be 1% of the original amount (Nadal's WTF title count), times 100, added to the original amount. In other words, 200% of the original amount. Multiplying by two.

How does that play out though?
2 times Nadal's WTF titles = 2*0 = 0 again.
600% would be 6*0 = 0 as well.

You could say "100% more" in the more informal sense that one has > 0 (some) and the other has 0 (none), but then it would remain 100% no matter how many Federer ended up getting, so long as the value is > 0, which doesn't make mathematical sense.

Is there a better way to quantify this?

Quality effort, and still, no one cares.

 

[Antonio Puente]

Outside this forum, that is.

Have you seen the Village(2004)?

Sure, it seems important on this forum, or in the village, but hop the wall. I dare you.

 

[Deleted member 688153]

Quality effort, and still, no one cares.

Hey. This is a serious question.

Despite being a Fed fan, I'm not satisfied with the answer that Federer is just indescribably better at the Tour Finals.

There has to be a way to describe it.

 

[Wander]

The problem with dividing a number with zero is that even if you try to go towards the limit of zero, the answer depends on which side you are arriving from so it's both negative and positive infinity which obviously doesn't really make sense and that's why it's undefined.

 

[Antonio Puente]

There has to be a way to describe it.

Of course Fed is better... much better. The question is: outside this forum, and beyond TMF's annual winter solstice orgy, what does it mean?

 

[peakin11mugs]

Bit of a mathematics question I guess

Fed has six (6) titles so far there, but 6*0 = 0.

Dividing by zero is also impossible. You could say that 6/0 = infinity (infinitely times more titles), but I don't think it's technically correct to say that x/0 = infinity. It's undefined.
So he just has undefined times more titles? We can't answer the question? I'm not satisfied with that.

Maybe something more accessible:
How many percent (%) more titles does he have?
100% more? 600% more?

To me "100% more" basically implies "twice as many" in most situations.
So "100% more" would be 1% of the original amount (Nadal's WTF title count), times 100, added to the original amount. In other words, 200% of the original amount. Multiplying by two.

How does that play out though?
2 times Nadal's WTF titles = 2*0 = 0 again.
600% would be 6*0 = 0 as well.

You could say "100% more" in the more informal sense that one has > 0 (some) and the other has 0 (none), but then it would remain 100% no matter how many Federer ended up getting, so long as the value is > 0, which doesn't make mathematical sense.

Is there a better way to quantify this?

The best way I look at it is federer has around 20 titles on each surface. Nadal has 1 indoor title (davednko has 6) and 90 percent on one surface

Fed is only man to win at least 10 titles on four surfaces and even holds the record on 3 surfaces. I don’t need to tell you nadal doesn’t have ten grass or indoor titles

 

[Deleted member 688153]

Of course Fed is better... much better. The question is: outside of this forum, and beyond TMF's annual winter solstice orgy, what does it mean?

Can't say, to be honest. Just having fun.

 

[Antonio Puente]

Can't say, to be honest. Just having fun.

My next serious post on this forum is due in 2019.

 

[vive le beau jeu !]

Dividing by zero is also impossible.

i'm afraid you forgot something, doc... as for roman numerals, there is no vamosalaplayan zero
it just doesn't morally exist...

 

[Jackuar]

About about digital technology in the 21st century? Either won or lost. 0 or 1. Irrespective of whether it's 1 or 100,its digital 1. Like saying GOAT or not. So, Federer is GOAT. Nadal is not.

Oops, I've started a fire. I'm outta here before it gets messy. Good day!

 

[falstaff78]

This is a lovely and good natured thread. Kudos

 

[Username_]

A legit question indeed.
Federer IS infinitely better because he doesn't pull out of round robin after losing and say injury

 

[merlinpinpin]

Federer is so much better than Nadal at the Masters that this is beyond the scope of the laws of the universe and you have to delve into other dimensions of mathemathics to try and quantify this.

Happy?

 

[PrinceMoron]

Can you have none in a row?

 

[Phoenix1983]

Give Nadal infinite chances to win the YEC and he still never would.

It would be like his own personal Groundhog Day, but one that never ended...

 

[Deleted member 688153]

Can you have none in a row?

If you could, Rafa would have it.

 

[merlinpinpin]

Can you have none in a row?

I'm pretty sure you can, at least morally.

 

[George Turner]

 

[Gazelle]

The problem with dividing a number with zero is that even if you try to go towards the limit of zero, the answer depends on which side you are arriving from so it's both negative and positive infinity which obviously doesn't really make sense and that's why it's undefined.

It's certainly positive in this case.

 

[Gazelle]

I see you've succumbed too mate. A case of if you can't beat the trolls, join 'em, right?

Gotta take the opportunity to have some fun before the Beast from Belgrade returns and this forum turns into an abyss again.

 

[Steve0904]

The limit does not exist.

 

[peakin11mugs]

Quality effort, and still, no one cares.

Stop being so salty. A lot of people are liking these above posts and are taking part in the discussion including you so clearly people do care. Vamoss brigrade logic again hey. This is a funny and original thread without taking it too far. Its one of the good things about this forum. Do the same about a Rafa thread instead of moaning. There’s plenty that mock Federer, Djokovic etc in a funny original light hearted way like this thread. Maybe vamoss brigrade members like Octo can do another sweetheart post genuinely m mocking people being hurt and actually wishing injury on them

 

[Deleted member 688153]

Looks like it's still infinity, rather than infinity + infinity/6.

Maybe next year

 

[Deleted member 688153]

@Sudacafan

Nadal has won 10 times more RGs than Fed though

 

[AiRFederer]

Technically, Rafa has defended his 0 YECs every year.