Girls are evil
http://img50.exs.cx/img50/7973/u81gy.jpg
Printable View
Girls are evil
http://img50.exs.cx/img50/7973/u81gy.jpg
:p no we aren't
it's up there in black and white, You can't aruge with maths if you do Issac newton cries.
Maths only a theory :p
I have to admit, I laughed. :p
Quote:
Originally Posted by YunaGirl05
Sure we are!!! :D
Except for a select few :D
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
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.
:(Quote:
Originally Posted by Xander
Have a panda. :fphap:
:( :(Quote:
Originally Posted by Xander
Old stuff :p
i am evil
Yeah, that's older thanChristRaist. I honestly think you had to translate that from Aramaic to post it here.
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.
Also, "Time and Money" would be Time + Money, not Time * Money.
Evil creatures, always sacrificing the virgin men!
Serious effort? Pssh, it's easy to make something evil.Quote:
Originally Posted by Czech. Republic
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:
Really, what's the point of proving the obvious in this case?
yeah like boys are better..
2 times the root of evil is not necesarily anywhere close to evil. Let us look at the entire equation again.Quote:
Originally Posted by ChocoboRider
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.
Isn't Satan a guy?
good point.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yamaneko
It all depends on your perspectiveQuote:
Originally Posted by Yamaneko
*watches Bedazzled* Satan is a woman here....
And God is a women in Dogma.
and what makes you think that all girls = money x money?
you have more time on your hands then me....Quote:
Originally Posted by Super Christ
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.
I hate math.
DittoQuote:
Originally Posted by Enoki
Who ever wrote that has gotta watch their back now lol!
You are all wrong.
Girls = 2+evil
I could have told you that.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yamaneko
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
Match Is A Called An Exact Science ^_^Quote:
Originally Posted by YunaGirl05
Very true.Quote:
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.
This wasn't meant to be taken seriously.Quote:
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
As doom already said, the arithmetic is wrong.
.opt
I have never seen this before. How original.
I wasn't meant to be taken seriously either.Quote:
Originally Posted by theundeadhero
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:Quote:
Originally Posted by theundeadhero
I wrote a whole thing not long ago about how money was the root of all good. What does that mean?
[q=Yamaneko][qq=theundeadhero]Very true.[/qq][/q]
By far the most effective quoting I have ever seen. :p
Money is neither good nor evil. Its the people that use it that counts.
Whatever....I'm still not agreeing that girls are evil...
Same here.
The Cutest
The Meanest ^____^
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.Quote:
yeah like boys are better..
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 ^_^)
Is not. But truely we do not know if 1+1 =s 2! its all a theroryQuote:
Originally Posted by J.D
your notation is horrible.Quote:
Originally Posted by White Raven
Quote:
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.
my brain hurts:(:(:(
I Bet Yer Not Done With High School YetQuote:
Originally Posted by YunaGirl05
:D :D :D :D :D :D
When I Finished High School I Didnt Felt Like Askin More Stuff To Math
It Scares Me :cry:
do i sound like it? darn! its still a theory.
I do!Quote:
Originally Posted by Garnet236
I'm a girl and I'm evil .....at certain times of the day :D
[q="White Raven"]
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 ^_^)[/q]
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.
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...
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.
Pfffft. Girls arnt evil.
Nuff said.
Chaos
Wake up peoples...the LOVE of money is the root of all evil. Therefore that proof is invalid. :D:D
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...:10&version=31
Oh well if it's in the Bible then it MUST be true :rolleyes2 I mean come on,Quote:
Originally Posted by Samuraid
it's not like it was dictated by God himself or anything.
Oh...
Damnit.
:p
.opt
You didn't seem to think I was old last night. :love:Quote:
Originally Posted by Doomgaze
"perky" morelike
If only that hadn't been posted over three years ago, I might smile at it. Yay for originality.