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

[ElStud]

Someone's smart so they're a geek, nice logic there.

 

[Slick101]

Someone's smart so they're a geek, nice logic there.

Thats not being smart, Thats actually being retarded of actually thinking of soemthing like that...

Why would you stress it to that level LOL

Do you know of anyone that would think like that?

I guarantee you he doesnt have success with woman

 

[Francisco d'Anconia]

...Why would you stress it to that level LOL...

Because Halo3 isn't out yet.

 

[Night Owl]

Well, as I have terminal dyslexia reading that was a complete and utter waste of time

All I can say is Dyslexia rules KO !!

 

[Dongfu]

Why dont you try to explain this theory to a really drunk girl in a club.

 

[ElStud]

Thats not being smart, Thats actually being retarded of actually thinking of soemthing like that...

Why would you stress it to that level LOL

Do you know of anyone that would think like that?

I guarantee you he doesnt have success with woman

And you do? Last I checked you were a keyboard jockie and you really have no proof of success.

 

[Slick101]

And you do? Last I checked you were a keyboard jockie and you really have no proof of success.

HAHAHAHAHA....

Honestly I thought you were a cool kid, now I can really understand what kind of clue-less idiot you are....

I spend my time in clubs and hosted some too, I have girls I just wanted to give a shot at the community to see what its all about...

your a 17 year old kid that still needs tons of practice based on your own approaches...

Plus look at your number or posts and and my number KK.. thanksss

dont even bother answering to this cuz your just going to prove yourself even more retarded....

 

[ElStud]

Hey, no need to get defensive buddy. You clearly care way too much about what one person thinks. I'm just saying you act all big without really have any proof of success. So what if your post number is lower? Some of my FIRST posts where field reports.

 

[belividere]

Thats not being smart, Thats actually being retarded of actually thinking of soemthing like that...

Brilliant

 

[Slick101]

Hey, no need to get defensive buddy. You clearly care way too much about what one person thinks. I'm just saying you act all big without really have any proof of success. So what if your post number is lower? Some of my FIRST posts where field reports.

Field Reports yea...

That go no where LOL...

Why do I need to post my success I dont need to prove anything and I dont even have time to post field reports...

Im not saying I will never post them, when I'll get time Ill write that full essay

 

[comic_relief]

bump... I have a math test tomorrow and this got me in the mood to go study.

comic_relief

 

[ProDJ26]

To the original poster of this thread:

feel free to come take my calc 2 finals!!!

 

[Francisco d'Anconia]

bump... I have a math test tomorrow and this got me in the mood to go study.

comic_relief

You're just trying to show up that midget rocket scientist from Moscow....

 

[Gubby]

hahaha what a classic post!

 

[mikeyb]

Was that whole thing supposed to be a pickup line?? D*mn, and I thought I was a geek.

Anyway, you can deduce N = D from the symmetry of your first equation, no need for all the calculus. I should know, I'm a maths major. So stop trying to impress.

 

[comic_relief]

bump... I have a math test tomorrow and this got me in the mood to go study.

comic_relief

Damnit this came into my head halfway through the test and now I failed it!!!

DAMNIT!!!

comic_relief

 

[ARrocket]

Call me a nerd, but I just went through this entire thread waiting for SOMEONE to point out that he failed to use a damn Lagrange multiplier. Hello, constrained maximization...but anyway, I love this post.

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

 

[ArcBound]

Call me a nerd, but I just went through this entire thread waiting for SOMEONE to point out that he failed to use a damn Lagrange multiplier. Hello, constrained maximization...but anyway, I love this post.

Rofl this is funny because I learned how to do all this last semester in microeconomic theory.... yeah he could have used Lagrange but I think that would have made it even harder for everyone to understand :crazy:

Reminds me of another simpler joke http://www.anvari.org/fun/Gender/Proof_that_Girls_are_Evil.html

 

[ARrocket]

Rofl this is funny because I learned how to do all this last semester in microeconomic theory.... yeah he could have used Lagrange but I think that would have made it even harder for everyone to understand :crazy:

Reminds me of another simpler joke http://www.anvari.org/fun/Gender/Proof_that_Girls_are_Evil.html

Ha yeah, true story. Feels good knowing lot's and lot's of math! Also, loved the link. That one's going up on Facebook...