A DJ Theory: Mathematically Proven! (now with calculator)

TooColdUlrick

Master Don Juan
Joined
Nov 23, 2003
Messages
990
Reaction score
9
Location
Hollywood
Originally posted by true|hockey
Non-Cooperative Game theory maybe, which is used in economics. The idea is to analyze choice rather than variables, it won john nash a nobel prize in the 90's. It is actually very applicable in social instances, especially with coopertive (wingman and the like) and non coopertive situations (a bunch of chumps ruining it for you).

I for one am scared to think that these things are actually modeled mathematically.
i have actually conducted a Monte Carlo simulation on the n-person, non-cooperatve Game Theoretics of Nash, et al. that is, getting this particular economist into the middle of an n-***** orgy. it works! really!

--

unfortunately for Jon Von Neumann, he died at a young age, and others ripped off his work. he is the most underrated scientist in the history of mankind.

--invented software
--developed "implosion" in atomic theory (Manhattan Project)
--revolutionized--invented weather forecasting
--developed a new branch of mathematics/economics, on the side.

http://scidiv.bcc.ctc.edu/Math/vonNeumann.html
 

rgeere

Master Don Juan
Joined
May 25, 2003
Messages
1,930
Reaction score
1
Location
Fort Worth, Texas
Ok, there is now a working copy of HuuBinh's theoretical time/interest postulate up on the net for anyone who doesn't understand his explanation of the theory, so you will not have to learn all of the crazy math to see how it works.

Go to this link, it's self explanatory and all you will have to do is type digits into the edit boxes, although I wouldn't recommend testing this out if you are going to be serious before understanding what it's all about first.

HuuBinh's theoretical time/interest postulate java calculator
 
Last edited:

On-top

Don Juan
Joined
Jun 12, 2002
Messages
53
Reaction score
0
Originally posted by crazykid
Hmm...Less time increases interest level? Wow, this is new!

To be honest...I don't know whether to laugh, cry, move it, close it, or just act like I never saw this...
Classic. :)
 

gav

Master Don Juan
Joined
Jan 5, 2004
Messages
1,137
Reaction score
3
Age
38
Location
Scotland

DJDamage

Master Don Juan
Joined
Sep 6, 2004
Messages
5,666
Reaction score
103
Location
Canada
I have one of my own.

E - you
M - Chick
C - Interest Level

In order for (E)you to get a (M)Chick to like you her (C)Interest Level in you has to be more then your interest Level in her, preferably twice more. Meaning she has to feel that you don't like her as much as she likes you. Interest Level do not exist for you because you don't tell her that you like her, but she is allowed to tell you that she likes you.

The balance works itself out that you don't turn AFC and still maintain mystery and challange therefore creating double the attraction and would allow you to sleep with her then simply just her stating she likes you, Therefore the formula:

E=mc²

If E is greater then mc² you are not getting laid tonight!!

HAHHAHAHA
 

*29*

Don Juan
Joined
Dec 30, 2004
Messages
95
Reaction score
0
Location
US
Let's see...carry the two...add A....divide by 0........EUREKA!
Calculator displays:

0.7734

58008!

Turn it upside down. The 4 should be an open 4.
 

check_mate_kid_uk

Master Don Juan
Joined
Jun 27, 2004
Messages
2,083
Reaction score
4
Location
UK
well isnt it odd, must have taken ages to mathematicly find out that less time = more attraction yet we all already new it, but we know maths does not work for this because the reason it works is because people spend to much time, if you keep decreasing time then intrest levle will start to fall again a bit like a Y=X squared graph :p except the relation ship between y and x will NOT be Y= 1/X ie will not be Y*X= constant it sill be some other gradient so maybe somthing closer to a Y=1/4 (X squared) graph i think you get the picture :p
 

I_Only_Live_Once

Senior Don Juan
Joined
May 15, 2005
Messages
227
Reaction score
5
Best post here! The way I look at it is a parody of many posts on here.
 

GropeDope

Banned
Joined
May 6, 2003
Messages
220
Reaction score
0
I can't believe you resurrected this sh!t.

As if you need a bunch of f*ckin math calculations in order to figure out that people want the things they can't always have whenever they want.
 

The Juan and only

Master Don Juan
Joined
Dec 4, 2005
Messages
805
Reaction score
8
Age
36
Location
United Kingdom
Originally posted by rgeere
I still don't understand how that totals to 1.39

In[20/(2*5) + [20/(2*5)]=ln(4)=1.39

Just break it down.

20/(2*5) = 2

ln[2 + 2] = ln4

ln is a logathrithm in base e -- known as a natural log (originally french -logarithm naturelle which is why we use ln)

ln of 4 is basically giving you THE POWER YOU NEED TO RAISE THE NUMBER e (2.71...) BY TO GET 4....which happens to be about 1.39


btw...this is the BIGGEST load of **** I've ever seen on this board
 
Last edited:

I'm Joe Dirt

Master Don Juan
Joined
Jan 7, 2005
Messages
668
Reaction score
4
Location
Chicago, IL
*ahem*

All this really is, is an application of basic economic theory of maximizing your utlity applied to dating.

Nothing revolutionary.

Replace time available with economic resources available (the production possibilities frontier / curve in economics) and dating v. spending with one guy dillema as guns v. butter, and ta-da.
 

MrS

Master Don Juan
Joined
Apr 2, 2005
Messages
1,362
Reaction score
7
But what if dy/dx = lnD * lnIl where lnD is -234252453242.34242 ?

Come on dude, it wasn't meant to be broken down into algebra :p
 

ksoileau

Don Juan
Joined
Aug 1, 2004
Messages
54
Reaction score
0
Re: A DJ Theory: Mathematically Proven!

Your first mistake occurred when you wrote

"MAX(D,N) = lnD + lnN - (Dt + Nt - T)

then, i take the partial derivative with respect to D, and N.

dMAX/dD = 1/D - t = 0 ---> t = 1/D
dMAX/dN = 1/N - t = 0 ---> t = 1/N "


You should have set up the Lagrange multiplier equation

MAX(D,N) = lnD + lnN + lambda*(Dt + Nt - T)

then
dMAX/dD =1/D+lambda*t
dMAX/dN =1/N+lambda*t

Then setting
dMAX/dD=0 yields 1/D+lambda*t=0
and setting
dMAX/dN=0 yields 1/N+lambda*t=0

thus 1/D=-lambda*t=1/N
hence
D=N

The reason your error did not derail your argument is because for D and N you assumed the same utility function (ln) and because this utility function is monotonic. You did not justify your assumption that the utility functions for D and N were the same function (ln) when in fact the true utility might be, say, U=.7*ln(D)+.3*ln(N). In that case the optimizing values would be N=3D/7, so it wouldn't be true that D=N is optimal. Continuing with this example, we get T = Dt + (3D/7)t and t=.7T/D so D=.7T/t and N=.3T/t
Finally, substituting into the utility equation yields
U = ln(.7T/t) + ln(.3T/t). You can probably continue your original argument from here, for this particular example.

Interesting idea, though.



Originally posted by HuuBinh
I will mathematically prove that when a girl reduces her time being with a guy, the guy's interest level increases.

Let say that the guy's interest level in the girl has a function:

IL = lnD

Where IL = interest level, a function of D, which is the number dating activities. This natural log function is concave which exibits diminishing marginal return of interest.

and he also derives happiness from other nondating activities:

O = lnN

Where O is other activities like sports, parties etc..., this function is also concave.

When we add these two types of utility (happinesss) together (dating & nondating) we have a utility function of:

U = lnD + lnN

This guy also faces a time constraint, which is also a function of dating & nondating activities (D&N), we have the function:

T = Dt + Nt

Where T = total amount of time devoted to dating and nondating.

For example: if he goes on 3 dates per week, each requires about 4 hours, then his dating time alone = 12hrs, excluding his nondating activities.

Individuals maximize their happiness subject to their constraints.

There, if we maximize U, and subject it to the time contraint T, to find the maximum number of dating activies and nondating activies, then we have:

MAX(D, N) s.t. (subject to) T

MAX(D,N) = lnD + lnN - (Dt + Nt - T)

then, i take the partial derivative with respect to D, and N.

dMAX/dD = 1/D - t = 0 ---> t = 1/D
dMAX/dN = 1/N - t = 0 ---> t = 1/N

divide: t/t = (1/D) / (1/N) ---> 1 = N/D

solve for D & N: we have a simple solution: D = N

The time constraint once again is: T = Dt + Nt,

I subsititute D in to this equation to solve for N, and the same for N to solve for D, to have:

N = T / (2t), this small t is the amount of time devoted to nondating activities and,

D = T / (2t), this small t is the amount of time devoted to dating activies;

Once again the utility function:

U = lnD + lnN,

Remember that, his romantic interest derives from dating alone which is the first part of the equation, lnD.

I then, substitute D & N into the ultiltiy function to have:

U = ln [ T / (2t) ] + ln [ T / (2t) ]

O.K. if the girl decides to reduce her time being with this guy, that means, the small t that indicates the amount of time he spends toward dating, must fall. If I isolate the interest level effect of this guy, i have:

IL = lnD

IL = ln [ T / (2t) ], if this (t) falls as a result of less time being with the girl, then according to the equation IL must RISE.

That means, he now has to shift some of his dating time toward his nondating activities. Lets use a numeric example.

In a given week, he has 20hrs to allocate between dating and nondating activities: T = 20

He goes on 2 dates per week each requires 5hrs, and 2 nondating activities each also requires 5hrs.

T = Dt + Nt ---> 2(5) + 2(5) = 20

Substitute these numbers into ultility equation, i have a total utility of:

U = lnD + lnN ---> ln [20 / (2*5) + ln [ 20 / (2*5) = 1.39 utils

*IL = lnD ---> 0.693
O = lnN ---> 0.693

Lets say now the girl still goes out with him 2 dates per week, but this time only 4 hours each instead of 5, thus dating time = 8 hrs.

Thus, he must now allocate that 2hrs extra toward his nondating activies.

Lets say that he still enjoys 2 nondating activities per week, but this time, 6hrs each.

We plug back into the equation to have.

T = Dt + Nt ---> 2(4) + 2(6) = 20hrs <--- still 20hrs per week

U = lnD + lnN ---> ln [20 / (2*4) + ln [ 20 / (2*6) = 1.43

If I isolate the the romantic interest effect alone, then:

IL = lnD ---> 0.916, this is higher than 0.693

This means, less time = more interest.

This result can also be generalized for guys, so SCARCE your time guys.

Comments are welcome!
 

mrRuckus

Master Don Juan
Joined
Feb 14, 2005
Messages
4,451
Reaction score
87
Originally posted by Giovanni Casanova
It is an absolute wonder that anyone on this board ever gets laid.

I have a friend who hides his comic books if a girl comes over as if one dorky thing is going to make or break his chances. Are you in the camp that deems anything dorky to be the antimatter to females?

yes, a star trek reference...


sorry i just get a little annoyed when it's constantly reinforced that liking certain things or liking the wrong music or something means there's something wrong with you and girls won't like you. I mean it's really no wonder guys don't have confidence these days.

<- works as a computer programmer
<- was a comp sci major
<- plays dorky video games
<- often starts sentences "hey did you know..." followed by random science fact
<- rants about corporations
<- makes sci fi references
<- ... gets laid regularly.
 

Rada

Don Juan
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Messages
32
Reaction score
0
Location
Romania
Something I noticed.......Ur theory is based on H.H. Gossen's theory that says something like this: "As the quantity of one good increases, the utility brought by consuming that good, decreases" (and viceversa). His theory also shows that marginal utility always decreases (the premise of ur theory) even if total utility increases but with a smaller ratio, till it starts decreasing too.

Total Utility at i quantities consumed of the respective good - UTi
Marginal Utility at i quantities consumed of the respective good - Umgi

UTi=UTi-1 + Umgi

First, this is based on rational thinking and rational consumers...and when dealing with love things are not rational at all.
Second, based on this theory, it would mean that the first date is the best of all dates, the one with the most utility, this deacreasing at the second date and so on. This would also mean, that a married man (after living with his wife for so long), would find no utility in seeing his wife and after some time would even find it insatisfying (this makes me laugh).
This works as long as we are rational...and it is true for people who don't love each other......but love is irational...so a normal in love married man would go home wanting to see his wife.
Usually if a date goes well, we want to see that person more and more....happiness is often brought by seeing her/him even even during the time we should be spending to do other activities and not seeing that person brings unhappiness even when spending ur free time in any other way.

Another thing....there is something I don't understand
MAX(D, N) s.t. (subject to) T

MAX(D,N) = lnD + lnN - (Dt + Nt - T)

Why do u put MAX(D,N) s.t T in this formula? I can't say I have a better idea, but please explain the logic.


U are good at maths, though..congrats!
 
Top