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

[Ice Cold]

Oh god! this is beautiful!

ROFLMAO

 

[Don Ronny]

Originally posted by Giovanni Casanova
It is an absolute wonder that anyone on this board ever gets laid.

So, you are saying the equations dont work!

 

[rgeere]

Well, if it wasn't for addition, multiplication, and division I sure wouldn't be interested in persueing women, so who says math is all that bad?

 

[Yotsuya-san]

Let's just give this equation to Deep Thought and if the past is indicitave of anything, we might find out the answer in about seven and a half million years.

"We demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!"
Vroomfondel

 

[Yotsuya-san]

Let's just give this equation to Deep Thought and if the past is indicitave of anything, we might find out the answer in about seven and a half million years.

Now that I think of it...Planet I heard of called called....Logopolis. They can create the perfect chick using block transfer computation. Don't know if they got over that bit with the Master, though.

"We demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!"
Vroomfondel

 

[TooColdUlrick]

dude, your math is sloppy.

you forgot about the quasi-convexity conditions; the second order conditions for local maxima/minima; and the non-linear time constraints. drop the logs and move it over to continuous-time stochastics. i think we'd better understand the inverse relationship between time spent and IL.

if you would have applied the neo-classical Von Neumann/Morgenstern risk axioms in the matrix algebra framework, you would be on the right track.

i have already completed this proof whilst i was whacking off last night.

i am now working on the Nash Bargaining Solution, applied to getting easy pvssy.

but i can't seem to get the continuous-time stochastics straight. any thoughts? i'm looking to get it published in the Journal of the American Frustrated Chump.

otherwise, your proof is perfect. kudos.

you must be an economist.

it's posts like these that keep me comin' back!!! i think he was actually serious. what a crack up.

hey moderators---MAKE THIS A STICKY!!!

 

[Eternal]

Originally posted by TooColdUlrick
hey moderators---MAKE THIS A STICKY!!!

Nah, we're good...

 

[karusel]

Sometimes you can prove what you want to prove without that actually being true. Relationships can't be explained by math, there are just much too many variables that you neglect in your calculations.

 

[rgeere]

You guys are taking this way to seriously. Way more seriously than I have, and I actually took the time to understand the math.
Just enjoy it for what it is worth for a good laugh, and move on.

 

[Alexis Zorba]

Hey...

Come on guys give the man a friggin break? Can't anyone like math? Just as some of you may like sports, reading, writing, there are people who absolutely love math. They do math just for fun. Don't attack him just because you can't see the fun in doing Calculus (hey I can't either. what a shame... ).

It is an absolute wonder that anyone on this board ever gets laid.

-Looking at my hairy palm-: What was that again?

You guys are taking this way to seriously. Way more seriously than I have, and I actually took the time to understand the math.

Amen to that.

Alexis Zorba

 

[Superman X]

It is an absolute wonder that anyone on this board ever gets laid.

hahahahaha

This thread is great.

-Dan

 

[comic_relief]

the moderators are pretty dam funny.

I love the humor in this post.

 

[true|hockey]

Originally posted by karusel
Sometimes you can prove what you want to prove without that actually being true. Relationships can't be explained by math, there are just much too many variables that you neglect in your calculations.

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.

 

[icepick]

Ah, I have been ruminating about your theory here, and I realize now, after isolating the specific points of antipathy between my intrinsic experiental extrapolations and the supposed implications of your espousal using a holistic overview, what is needed to reconcile your formulas to empirical datum.

First, the parabolic. Then keep in mind Ulricks post. Although, Ulrick, I think that using the neo-classical Von Neumann/Morgenstern risk axioms, in this situation, is a bit simplistic.

Don't you think?

Look at Dirac's postulate of non-communicativitiness. That seems to keep the divergencess at the singularities down to a nugatory level.

Applied to the 4-th dimensional multiplicital-derivative (that is e to the integral of the log of the function from a to b, divided by b minus a), this conjecture seems to imply a double convexity of the topological hull of the projected data, sufficient to converge the 2nd order derivatives to unity, while refracting the 3rd orders at these points to infinity. (Which is what all girls want! Duh!)

So, using your modulated theory, I ran a simulation on my associates supercomputer, and we came up with the constant for women:

W=01010011011010110110010101100101011101000010110000100000011100110110101101100101011001010111010000101100001000000111001101101011011001010110010101110100001011000010000001110011011010110110010101100101011101000010110000100000011100110110101101100101011001010111010000100001

Pardon the binary, but since man and women can be viewed as positive and negative entities interacting in a discontinuous, yet paridoxically enclosed environment, we felt it was justified.

 

[rgeere]

Originally posted by icepick

So, using your modulated theory, I ran a simulation on my associates supercomputer, and we came up with the constant for women:

W=01010011011010110110010101100101011101000010110000100000011100110110101101100101011001010111010000101100001000000111001101101011011001010110010101110100001011000010000001110011011010110110010101100101011101000010110000100000011100110110101101100101011001010111010000100001

Pardon the binary, but since man and women can be viewed as positive and negative entities interacting in a discontinuous, yet paridoxically enclosed environment, we felt it was justified.

May thou continually drool within the presence of faded 90's era claudia shiffard pics and posters, my liege. Thou art a father to all who seek thy divine presence ohh great digerati. Thou mayest live long and prosper, and napster forevermore.

 

[rgeere]

Originally posted by icepick

W=01010011011010110110010101100101011101000010110000100000011100110110101101100101011001010111010000101100001000000111001101101011011001010110010101110100001011000010000001110011011010110110010101100101011101000010110000100000011100110110101101100101011001010111010000100001

On a serious note a real computer geek would not fall for this being binary. Binary doesn't look like this.

 

[So pimp its scary]

Woman = Evil

I found an equation of my own...

First, we all know that women take time and money.

Woman = Time * Money

The cliche says, 'time is money'

Time = Money

Therefore,

Woman = Money * Money = Money^2 (Or squared)

And because money is the root of all evil

Money = Sqrt(Evil)

Therefore,

Woman = (Sqrt(Evil))^2

And we are forced to conclude that

Woman = Evil

However, because we make the root squared we must give the absolute value

Woman = |evil|

Or Woman = Absolute Evil

Beat that b!tch!! *snaps fingers aggressively*

 

[rgeere]

Re: Woman = Evil

Originally posted by So pimp its scary
I found an equation of my own...

First, we all know that women take time and money.

Woman = Time * Money

The cliche says, 'time is money'

Time = Money

Therefore,

Woman = Money * Money = Money^2 (Or squared)

And because money is the root of all evil

Money = Sqrt(Evil)

Therefore,

Woman = (Sqrt(Evil))^2

And we are forced to conclude that

Woman = Evil

However, because we make the root squared we must give the absolute value

Woman = |evil|

Or Woman = Absolute Evil

Beat that b!tch!! *snaps fingers aggressively*

That's old, someone had put a picture of a paper with that written on it as a wallpaper on one of the computers in a lab here at my university a few months ago.

 

[Evil-Rom]

0.999... = 1.

 

[So pimp its scary]

Re: Re: Woman = Evil

Originally posted by rgeere
That's old, someone had put a picture of a paper with that written on it as a wallpaper on one of the computers in a lab here at my university a few months ago.

I know its old... it's kinda lame also.