PDA

View Full Version : Finaly the mathmatical proof



gokufusionss1
01-01-2005, 03:46 PM
Girls are evil

http://img50.exs.cx/img50/7973/u81gy.jpg

YunaGirl05
01-01-2005, 04:12 PM
:p no we aren't

gokufusionss1
01-01-2005, 04:14 PM
it's up there in black and white, You can't aruge with maths if you do Issac newton cries.

YunaGirl05
01-01-2005, 04:17 PM
Maths only a theory :p

DMKA
01-01-2005, 04:20 PM
I have to admit, I laughed. :p

Faris
01-01-2005, 04:25 PM
:p no we aren't
Sure we are!!! :D

Except for a select few :D

Xander
01-01-2005, 04:27 PM
If girls require time and money, wouldn't that be "time + money" not "time x money"?

I have to admit, I didn't laugh :p

ChocoboRider
01-01-2005, 04:42 PM
well, if it really was money+time, then, of course, the follwing would follow (i'm using ! for the roots):

girls = time + money

time = money

girls = money + money

money = !(evil)

girls = 2(!evil)

therefor, girls are 2 times as much as the root of all evil. that's scary.

be afraid, men. not because of the potential evil in a girl, but because they are more powerful than you can imagine.

DMKA
01-01-2005, 04:53 PM
I have to admit, I didn't laugh :p
:(

Xander
01-01-2005, 04:55 PM
Have a panda. :fphap:

DMKA
01-01-2005, 05:08 PM
Have a panda. :fphap:
:( :(

crono_logical
01-01-2005, 05:40 PM
Old stuff :p

boris no no
01-01-2005, 06:36 PM
i am evil

Doomgaze
01-01-2005, 06:49 PM
Yeah, that's older than <s>Christ</s>Raist. I honestly think you had to translate that from Aramaic to post it here.

Cz
01-01-2005, 06:58 PM
It's a good chuckle, until you realise that somebody probably put some serious thought into its creation, at which point it becomes almost embarrassing to read.

Doomgaze
01-01-2005, 07:03 PM
Also, "Time and Money" would be Time + Money, not Time * Money.

theundeadhero
01-01-2005, 07:10 PM
Evil creatures, always sacrificing the virgin men!

Psychotic
01-01-2005, 07:32 PM
It's a good chuckle, until you realise that somebody probably put some serious thought into its creation, at which point it becomes almost embarrassing to read.Serious effort? Pssh, it's easy to make something evil.

Czanthor = George x London + Black Mage 121

Black Mage 121 = Evil + Naughty divided by the square root of Satan = EVIL!

Therefore Czanthor = George x London + Evil = GLEVIL!

See? ...ok I made you into Glevil but that's not bad for a first try! :cool:

bennator
01-01-2005, 08:11 PM
Really, what's the point of proving the obvious in this case?

Armisael
01-01-2005, 09:06 PM
yeah like boys are better..

Super Christ
01-01-2005, 10:22 PM
well, if it really was money+time, then, of course, the follwing would follow (i'm using ! for the roots):

girls = time + money

time = money

girls = money + money

money = !(evil)

girls = 2(!evil)

therefor, girls are 2 times as much as the root of all evil. that's scary.

be afraid, men. not because of the potential evil in a girl, but because they are more powerful than you can imagine.
2 times the root of evil is not necesarily anywhere close to evil. Let us look at the entire equation again.
Girls=Time+Money
Time=Money
Girls=Money+Money, or simplified, Girls=2(Money)
Money=√(Evil)
Girls=2*√(Evil)
To determine whether girls are equal to, less than, or greater than evil, we would need to determine the value of evil.
If Evil<4, then 2*√(Evil)>Evil
If Evil=4, then 2*√(Evil)=Evil
If Evil>4, then 2*√(Evil)< Evil
Which shows that as the value of Evil increases, the fraction Girls/Evil diminishes exponentially.

We can also use a known value for Girls and solve for Evil.

Yamaneko
01-02-2005, 12:37 AM
Isn't Satan a guy?

YunaGirl05
01-02-2005, 12:38 AM
Isn't Satan a guy?

good point.

Faris
01-02-2005, 12:41 AM
Isn't Satan a guy?
It all depends on your perspective
*watches Bedazzled* Satan is a woman here....

Craig
01-02-2005, 12:45 AM
And God is a women in Dogma.

Dking'squeen
01-02-2005, 12:52 AM
and what makes you think that all girls = money x money?

boris no no
01-02-2005, 12:57 AM
2 times the root of evil is not necesarily anywhere close to evil. Let us look at the entire equation again.
Girls=Time+Money
Time=Money
Girls=Money+Money, or simplified, Girls=2(Money)
Money=√(Evil)
Girls=2*√(Evil)
To determine whether girls are equal to, less than, or greater than evil, we would need to determine the value of evil.
If Evil<4, then 2*√(Evil)>Evil
If Evil=4, then 2*√(Evil)=Evil
If Evil>4, then 2*√(Evil)< Evil
Which shows that as the value of Evil increases, the fraction Girls/Evil diminishes exponentially.

We can also use a known value for Girls and solve for Evil.
you have more time on your hands then me....

PhoenixAsh
01-02-2005, 01:04 AM
The original post was decent, but didn't make me laugh. Xander and ChocoboRider's further investigation was cleverer IMO, but didn't make me laugh out loud. Super Christ's FURTHER investigation actually made me laugh out loud quite a lot. This is my semi-official review of the thread so far.

Enoki
01-02-2005, 01:32 AM
I hate math.

*ETERNAL FANTASY*
01-02-2005, 02:00 AM
I hate math.

Ditto

Who ever wrote that has gotta watch their back now lol!

yo momma
01-02-2005, 02:11 AM
You are all wrong.
Girls = 2+evil

escobert
01-02-2005, 02:27 AM
I could have told you that.

Shuko
01-02-2005, 03:38 AM
Isn't Satan a guy?

If you follow the Judeo-Christian belief that Satan, I.E. the devil, I.E. the evil one, blah blah blah, and so forth, you believe that Satan is the name of the angel Lucifer that was cast out of heaven. The traditional belief is that angels have no gender. Therefore, unless Satan chose to assume a gender once he was cast out, he is neither a guy nor a girl.

And here's another mind-slapper. Another traditional belief is that Satan is ugly, and hideous to look at. Well, if he was an angel, wouldn't it follow that he would be aesthetically beautiful in appearance? It would certainly help him out in his favorite pasttime: tempting mortals. :P

I don't think a whole gender group can be evil. And despite what the creator of that equation thinks, there are just as many high-maintenance men out there as there are women. So it is kind of silly to apply that equation to women only. I say you should say Women OR Men, lol. :rolleyes2

J.D
01-02-2005, 03:45 AM
Maths only a theory :p

Match Is A Called An Exact Science ^_^

theundeadhero
01-02-2005, 03:52 AM
If you follow the Judeo-Christian belief that Satan, I.E. the devil, I.E. the evil one, blah blah blah, and so forth, you believe that Satan is the name of the angel Lucifer that was cast out of heaven. The traditional belief is that angels have no gender. Therefore, unless Satan chose to assume a gender once he was cast out, he is neither a guy nor a girl.
Very true.

I don't think a whole gender group can be evil. And despite what the creator of that equation thinks, there are just as many high-maintenance men out there as there are women. So it is kind of silly to apply that equation to women only. I say you should say Women OR Men, lolThis wasn't meant to be taken seriously.

Optium
01-02-2005, 04:00 AM
As doom already said, the arithmetic is wrong.

.opt

-N-
01-02-2005, 04:10 AM
I have never seen this before. How original.

Yamaneko
01-02-2005, 04:31 AM
Very true.
I wasn't meant to be taken seriously either.

Shuko
01-02-2005, 04:50 AM
This wasn't meant to be taken seriously.

Yeah, but since no one else had said it yet, I thought I would. You can choose to take me seriously or not. :rolleyes2 It's the attention I crave, so whether it's negative or positive, it's all good to me. :hat:

Teek
01-02-2005, 04:52 AM
I wrote a whole thing not long ago about how money was the root of all good. What does that mean?

-N-
01-02-2005, 05:52 AM
Very true.
By far the most effective quoting I have ever seen. :p

Sweet Beloved
01-02-2005, 07:02 AM
Money is neither good nor evil. Its the people that use it that counts.

Garnet236
01-02-2005, 07:06 AM
Whatever....I'm still not agreeing that girls are evil...

Sweet Beloved
01-02-2005, 07:16 AM
Same here.

J.D
01-02-2005, 10:17 AM
The Cutest
The Meanest ^____^

nik0tine
01-02-2005, 10:29 AM
yeah like boys are better..

You can say that all you want, but until you can show it with valid mathmatical reasoning than it's nothing more than words without substance.

White Raven
01-02-2005, 04:13 PM
Yeah, that one's good but I prefer a more complicated one...like this one:

(I can even work it out with First Year Calculus ^_^)

YunaGirl05
01-02-2005, 04:19 PM
Match Is A Called An Exact Science ^_^

Is not. But truely we do not know if 1+1 =s 2! its all a therory

gokufusionss1
01-02-2005, 04:32 PM
Yeah, that one's good but I prefer a more complicated one...like this one:

(I can even work it out with First Year Calculus ^_^)

your notation is horrible.

Doomgaze
01-02-2005, 06:46 PM
The proof starts from the Peano Postulates, which define the natural
numbers N. N is the smallest set satisfying these postulates:

P1. 1 is in N.
P2. If x is in N, then its "successor" x' is in N.
P3. There is no x such that x' = 1.
P4. If x isn't 1, then there is a y in N such that y' = x.
P5. If S is a subset of N, 1 is in S, and the implication
(x in S => x' in S) holds, then S = N.

Then you have to define addition recursively:
Def: Let a and b be in N. If b = 1, then define a + b = a'
(using P1 and P2). If b isn't 1, then let c' = b, with c in N
(using P4), and define a + b = (a + c)'.

Then you have to define 2:
Def: 2 = 1'

2 is in N by P1, P2, and the definition of 2.

Theorem: 1 + 1 = 2

Proof: Use the first part of the definition of + with a = b = 1.
Then 1 + 1 = 1' = 2 Q.E.D.

Note: There is an alternate formulation of the Peano Postulates which
replaces 1 with 0 in P1, P3, P4, and P5. Then you have to change the
definition of addition to this:
Def: Let a and b be in N. If b = 0, then define a + b = a.
If b isn't 0, then let c' = b, with c in N, and define
a + b = (a + c)'.

You also have to define 1 = 0', and 2 = 1'. Then the proof of the
Theorem above is a little different:

Proof: Use the second part of the definition of + first:
1 + 1 = (1 + 0)'
Now use the first part of the definition of + on the sum in
parentheses: 1 + 1 = (1)' = 1' = 2 Q.E.D.

boko9955
01-02-2005, 07:08 PM
my brain hurts:(:(:(

J.D
01-02-2005, 07:26 PM
Is not. But truely we do not know if 1+1 =s 2! its all a therory

I Bet Yer Not Done With High School Yet
:D :D :D :D :D :D
When I Finished High School I Didnt Felt Like Askin More Stuff To Math
It Scares Me :cry:

YunaGirl05
01-02-2005, 07:35 PM
do i sound like it? darn! its still a theory.

Faris
01-02-2005, 08:02 PM
Whatever....I'm still not agreeing that girls are evil...
I do!
I'm a girl and I'm evil .....at certain times of the day :D

bennator
01-02-2005, 09:13 PM
Yeah, that one's good but I prefer a more complicated one...like this one:

(I can even work it out with First Year Calculus ^_^)

I found one possible error. f(t) was never defined in that example, and therefore, the limit at t=inf. may or may not be infinity...It could be zero for all we know, throwing it off.

Dking'squeen
01-02-2005, 09:14 PM
lyrics from a song:

....and in this world it's not all our money that's evil...it's the ones who choose it over life...

Craig
01-02-2005, 09:33 PM
I know a girl who is very evil, she locked a little kid (with a fear of spiders and tight spaces) in a cupboard because he wouldn't eat the meal she cooked him.

Chaos
01-02-2005, 11:44 PM
Pfffft. Girls arnt evil.
Nuff said.

Chaos

Samuraid
01-03-2005, 12:54 AM
Wake up peoples...the <b>LOVE</b> of money is the root of all evil. Therefore that proof is invalid. :D:D

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Timothy%206:10&version=31

Optium
01-03-2005, 01:23 AM
Wake up peoples...the <b>LOVE</b> of money is the root of all evil. Therefore that proof is invalid. :D:D

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Timothy%206:10&version=31

Oh well if it's in the Bible then it MUST be true :rolleyes2 I mean come on,
it's not like it was dictated by God himself or anything.

Oh...

Damnit.

:p

.opt

Raistlin
01-03-2005, 03:04 AM
Yeah, that's older than <s>Christ</s>Raist. I honestly think you had to translate that from Aramaic to post it here.
You didn't seem to think I was old last night. :love:

Doomgaze
01-03-2005, 03:22 AM
"perky" morelike

Spatvark
01-03-2005, 03:23 AM
If only that hadn't been posted over three years ago, I might smile at it. Yay for originality.