What does communicable mean

What Does Communicable Mean?

http://www.blurtit.com/q450351.html

Communicable is something like contagious or something that is transmissible between individuals as well as species. In other terms it could also be referred to as communicable ideas. Communicable disease has the tendency of being passed on…

What is communicable?

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_communicable&src=rss0

A communicable idea is one that is easily communicated; a communical disease is one which is able to be transmitted by infection.

What does communicable disease mean?

http://www.audioenglish.net/dictionary/communicable_disease.htm

1. a disease that can be communicated from one person to another

Related Questions Answered on Y!Answers

what does communicable mean?

Q: non communicable?

A: Easily transferable….

How do you explain this logical / mathematical paradox in language?

Q: There are 26 letters in the English alphabet. If you allot 78 digit places for these 26 letters, and used all of the spaces up, you could arrange those 26 letters in 26^78 different ways.If you allowed for a space between words, you have 27 different “letters”… which not only allows you to add space between words but it also allows (justifies) you to use long empty space (ie, less than all 78 places).Add then ten or so punctuation marks, and you have yourself an “alphabet” or 37 “letters”.Using 78 spaces (and accounting for the use of fewer with the space), there are 37^78 different “letter” combinations using the 26 alphabet letters, spaces and ten punctuation marks.Most of which would be nonsensical expressions in language, having no communicable meaning. Even if you allowed for alternative languages which use the same alphabet and punctuation set, most all these combinations would make no sense. If you restricted the combinations to comprehensible sentences, regardless of language, there would be far fewer than 37^78.In any case, 37^78 is a finite, albeit large number. There is indeed a maximum number of ways to arrange 37 characters in 78 positions. That maximum is 37^78.You could describe most numbers with their proper name, “one”, “two”, “three”, so forth. You can describe them in a variety of other ways: “average number of birds in a flock” in place of 23, “average height, in feet, of a house” in place of 10. So forth. Every number may be written out properly or otherwise described.Now, if you were to list out all the numbers which can be described in only 78 characters, you would be limited to 37^78. And so there are an infinite number of other numbers in existence which cannot be described in in 78 characters. Right?The question then arises, what is the smallest number that cannot be described in fewer than seventy-nine letters?Let x be the smallest number that cannot be described in fewer than seventy-nine letters.Thus, x can be described as “the smallest number that cannot be described in fewer than seventy-nine letters.”, which contains precisely 78 letters (including the punctuation).Since x is defined to be the smallest said number, and in describing it as such it is proven to be not, we have arrived at a contradiction.Logic would suggest that there is no such x, the smallest said number.But since logic also tells me that there are 37^78 numbers that can be described this way, and an infinite numbers that cannot… then something is wrong with logic itself.Does this example not prove that logical proofs-by-contradiction are useless?

A: Let’s ignore the large number of these “paradoxes” … dealing with one is enough.What is the problem with this (alleged) paradox?The problem is that you are assuming language, as we interpret it or use it, is somehow mathematically valid. Just because it sounds like you have defined a number does not mean you have.The real problem is that the term “described” is not well defined or properly… described.If you are saying “oh but that’s just a problem with grammar, I can use different words or some other way to make this contradiction still a legitimate contradiction,” then you must believe the contradiction exists in a mathematical sense — not a grammatical or semantic sense.But my response to that is simply to say: okay then we will have to define the number x. But what does it mean to define something? What is the definition of definition? And here we fail. This contradiction arises from outside mathematics — it is a meta-mathematical problem. Language and human paradigm suggest that we should be able to define anything any way we want. In mathematics, that is not so.What you have given is something that, despite looking like it, is NOT a definition of a number. (Why not? Because if you assume you did, it gives rise to a contradiction.)Essentially, to take a different mathematical perspective and boil it down: there is no way to compute the minimal number of words / symbols / whatever that it takes to describe a number. (Look up “non-computable.”) That is another way to state / explain why the “definition” of this number is not valid (and thus the paradox is not a paradox at all).This is extremely well-known and well-documented:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berry_paradoxIt is not a contradiction or flaw in mathematics — don’t worry. No apocalypse in 2012 :]PS Thumbs down? What’s the problem? Is my answer too long perhaps?Response to added details: What do you mean? There is no reason to think that. What you have done is prove, by contradiction, that this “number” is not well defined — the definition is faulty. This (non)paradox does not make anything in mathematics “not work.”

What does it mean when a red NA appears beside a player’s name in Yahoo Fantasy Hockey?

Q: And why have so many players in the league suddenly picked up this red NA? It’s like some sort of communicable disease!

A: YAHOO SCREWED UP.