Girls are Evil

[Malakar]

Here's the undisputable proof. :)

We already knew this deep down inside though, right? ;)

[LochnarITB]

Here's the undisputable proof. :)
[right][snapback]76932[/snapback][/right]

Oh, but the proof is wrong from the first line. They equate time and money to (time x money) rather than (time + money).

In fact it should be:

women = time + money
time = money
women = 2 x money
money = √evil
women = 2 x √evil

which says to me - "If you think money is the root of all evil, think again! Women are twice as bad!"

:o :lol:

[jahcs]

Money is not the root of all evil, credit is. :P

[Jeunemaitre]

Here's the undisputable proof. :)

We already knew this deep down inside though, right? ;)
[right][snapback]76932[/snapback][/right]

I have to disagree. The final statement of this proof is valid given the original statement, however, I disagree with the original characterization. The statement "Girls require time and money" is not adequately captured by the expression "Girls=Time*Money." I believe that statement is better represented as:

G = T+M+x

where G= girls, T=time, M=Money, and x represents some quantity of additional components. Therefore, a simplification analogous to the one previously proposed results in the following expression:

G = (2*√evil)+x

While this demonstrates that a part of the feminine make-up is indeed evil (twice the root of evil to be specific), I think it is premature to conclude that "Girls are evil" (i.e., G=E). It seems that additional though on the make-up of "x" is fundamentally necessary for the further description of G.

edit: minor corrections

[Doc]

Should we include various chaos theories into all this babble?

Women are the Butterfly Effect put into action.

[Occhidiangela]

  They equate time and money to (time x money) rather than (time + money).

[right][snapback]76934[/snapback][/right]

Hmm, got a wife and a daughter, had quite a few girlfriends back in the day. The impact of women on money outflow is geometric, not arithmetic. Time X Money is correct.

Occhi

[Alram]

Why trained technical staff makes less money than management.

Time=Money
Knowledge=Power

Power=Work/Time
substituting we get
Knowledge=Work/Money
solving for money we get

Money=Work/Knowledge

So it doesn't matter how much work management does. The less they know, the more money they make.

[jahcs]

Hmm, got a wife and a daughter, had quite a few girlfriends back in the day.  The impact of women on money outflow is geometric, not arithmetic.  Time X Money is correct.

Occhi
[right][snapback]76959[/snapback][/right]

Good point, Occhi. But the geometric effect is often more pronounced in certain examples of the species:

(Money) exponent (Time)

Jeunemaitre has a good point too. What X equals changes randomly based on a woman's mood, is unknown by men, and is often viewed as irrational by outsiders. Most women would also say that we, as men, are imagining things so I would say Xi is the proper notation.

:D

[Jeunemaitre]

Good point, Occhi.  But the geometric effect is often more pronounced in certain examples of the species:

(Money) exponent (Time)

Jeunemaitre has a good point too.  What X equals changes randomly based on a woman's mood, is unknown by men, and is often viewed as irrational by outsiders.  Most women would also say that we, as men, are imagining things so I would say Xi is the proper notation.

:D
[right][snapback]76975[/snapback][/right]

I was tempted to put forth that x represented a "feminine constant" but then realized the oxymoronic nature of that hypothesis. I have a feeling that jahcs may have something here though. I'm not sure whether the entirety of x is imaginary, but you've got me convinced that at least some of the terms in that quantity are linked to √-1. The question is what polynomials were factored to generate these terms, and how can we describe the interaction of some of these imaginary terms?

[ducks and covers] :ph34r:

edit: freakin' spelling mistakes

[Doc]

Where is Dr. Bunson Honeydew when we need him...

He could invent something that could measure consistancy in a woman. Knowing Honeydew, and knowing women, the contraption would prolly explode, doing something horrible to Beaker. Like turning him into a woman or something.

[Occhidiangela]

I was tempted to put forth that x represented a "feminine constant" but then realized the oxymoronic nature of that hypothesis.  I have a feeling that jahcs may have something here though.  I'm not sure whether the entirety of x is imaginary, but you've got me convinced that at least some of the terms in that quantity are linked to √-1.  The question is what polynomials were factored to generate these terms, and how can we describe the interaction of some of these imaginary terms?

[ducks and covers] :ph34r:

edit: freakin' spelling mistakes
[right][snapback]76984[/snapback][/right]

Polly Nomials was a tramp. The entire depth chart of our varsity football team swears to it, and "factored" ain't the term they used for the "interaction!"

Occhi

[Obi2Kenobi]

Ah, but if that is true, then men are worse.

Man=Money*Time*Girl*Sex
If
Time=Money
Then, substituting
Man=Money*Money*Girl*Sex
For most men, girl=sex, therefore
Man=Money²*Girl²
Now if we are to assume that girl=evil, and that money is the root of all evil, then we get
sqrt(money²)=evil
Man=sqrt (money²)*evil²
Man=evil^3

(note: I didn't come up with this)

I also saw proof that girls are, in fact, good. :)

[DeeBye]

Where is Dr. Bunson Honeydew when we need him...
[right][snapback]76993[/snapback][/right]

Are you sure it's "Bunson" and not "Bunsen"? I can't seem to verify the correct spelling.

[DeeBye]

Polly Nomials was a tramp.
[right][snapback]77020[/snapback][/right]

I once got pretty tangential to her asymptote. I broke it off with her when I realised that she could never reach her goal.

[jahcs]

Ah, but if that is true, then men are worse.

Man=Money*Time*Girl*Sex
If
Time=Money
Then, substituting
Man=Money*Money*Girl*Sex
For most men, girl=sex, therefore
Man=Money²*Girl²
Now if we are to assume that girl=evil, and that money is the root of all evil, then we get
sqrt(money²)=evil
Man=sqrt (money²)*evil²
Man=evil^3

(note: I didn't come up with this)

I also saw proof that girls are, in fact, good. :)
[right][snapback]77035[/snapback][/right]

My observation would suggest that a man is only as good as the woman he stands with. Most women will say they don't need a man. So would that notation be man<woman?

And men only wish woman=sex is true. Sex is usually better described as man+woman*money*time=sex. Please remember the orders of operations when using this formula.

[Occhidiangela]

I once got pretty tangential to her asymptote.&nbsp; I broke it off with her when I realised that she could never reach her goal.
[right][snapback]77037[/snapback][/right]

Had you know how to take things to the limit, you would have solved her equation.

Occhi

[Zippyy]

Once upon a time (1/t), pretty little Polly Nomial was strolling across a field of vectors, when she came to the edge of a singularly large matrix. Now Polly was convergent, and her mother had made it an absolute condition that she must never enter such an array without her brackets on. Polly, however, had changed her variables that morning, and, feeling particularly badly behaved, she ignored this condition on the grounds that it was insufficient, and made her way in amongst the complex elements.

Rows and columns enveloped her on all sides. Tangents approached her surface. She became tensor and tensor. Quite suddenly, three branches of a hyperbola touched her at a single point. She oscillated violently, lost all sense of directrix, and went completely divergent. As she reached a turning point, she tripped over a square root which was protruding from the erf, and plunged headlong down a steep gradient. When she was differentiated once more, she found herself, apparently alone, in a non-euclidean space.

She was being watched however. That smooth operator, Curly Pi, was lurking inner product. As his eyes devoured her curvilinear coordinates, a singular expression crossed his face. Was she still convergent, he wondered. He decided to integrate improperly at once.

Hearing a vulgar function behind her, Polly turned round, and saw Curly Pi approaching with his power series extrapolated. She could see at once, by his degenerate conic and his dissipative terms, that he was bent on no good.

"Eureka" she gasped.

"Ho, ho!" he said. "What a symmetric little polynomial you are. I can see that you are absolutely bubbling over with secs".

"Sir", she said, "keep away from me. I haven't got my brackets on.

"Calm yourself my dear" said our suave operator, "your fears are purely imaginary".

"i, i" she thought. "Perhaps he's homogeneous then?".

"What order are you?" the brute demanded.

"Seventeen", replied Polly.

Curly leered. "I suppose you've never been operated on yet?" he said.

"Of course not" Polly cried indignantly. "I'm absolutely convergent".

"Come, cone," said Curly. "Lets off to a decimal place I know, and I'll take you to the limit".

"Never" gasped Polly.

His patience was gone. Coshing her over the coefficient with a log until she was powerless, Curly removed her discontinuities. He stared at her significant places and began to smooth her points of inflexion. Poor Polly. All was lost. She felt his hand bonding to her asymptotic limit. Her convergence would be gone for ever.

There was no mercy, for Curly was a heavyside operator. He integrated by parts. He integrated by partial fractions. The complex beast even went all the way round, and did a contour integration. What an indignity! Curly went on operating until he was completely and absolutely orthogonal.

When Polly got hone that evening, her mother noticed that she had been truncated in several places. But it was too late to differentiate now --- the seeds having been sown. As the months went by, Polly increased monotonically. Finally, she generated a small, but pathological, function, which left surds all over the place, until she was driven to distraction.

The moral of this sad story is this: It you want to keep your expressions convergent, never allow them a single degree of freedom.



I wish I could take credit for that. I first saw it on bash.org and have seen it in various other places since then. The original author seems to be Richard A. Gibbs.

This was very educational during my recently completed calc 2 class.

[Walkiry]

My observation would suggest that a man is only as good as the woman he stands with.&nbsp; Most women will say they don't need a man.&nbsp; So would that notation be man<woman?

And men only wish woman=sex is true.&nbsp; Sex is usually better described as man+woman*money*time=sex.&nbsp; Please remember the orders of operations when using this formula.
[right][snapback]77058[/snapback][/right]

As far as equations go, men=money*(anything) is incorrect. Beers and BBQ are quite cheap and will satisfy the basic needs of most men outside of sex. You only need a bit of genital scratching to complete the happiness basket, and that's free...

[Occhidiangela]

Once upon a time (1/t) . . .
[right][snapback]77086[/snapback][/right]

Hmmmm, I'd say Curly Pi operated a bit too heavily in the irrational and imaginary realm, given what the varsity football team had to say. As to Polly and her mom, is there any good and sufficient reason they did not call the co(p)s?
(Was trying to figure out how to write/type "pi-least" but can't remember a notation for least. )

Occhi

[Obi2Kenobi]

My observation would suggest that a man is only as good as the woman he stands with.&nbsp; Most women will say they don't need a man.&nbsp; So would that notation be man<woman?[right][snapback]77058[/snapback][/right]

But since evil is negative, all we can conclude from this is that evil<-1, since any negative number <-1 is even more negative when cubed.