NationStates Jolt Archive

Some friends and I (mostly me) have come up with some very awesome formulas. These formulas describe the effective number of people (assuming they are interacting) in a room, given the number of individuals. The effective number of people is an admittedly vague term used in this case to refer to the level of energy and interaction going on. For reference: m is the number of individual men, w is the number of individual women, and p is the number of women on their period; also, a person can be defined as a fractional "individual" for the purposes of these equations: for example, couples count as a single person, and therefore each person is a fractional individual. The formulas are as follows:

f(women)= (w(w+1))/2 + (w-p^3)
f(men)= m^(m/(m-(m-(w-p))))

If none of this makes sense, apply these formulas to some time you've ever been in a room, and they actually make some sense.

You'll also note that strange things happen when you apply certain numbers to the men's equation: the first is this: if there are an equal number of men and women (assuming p=0) in a room, you get this: m^(m/0), which is an undefined answer. If there are no men or women in a room, you get this: 0^(0/0), the result of which any mathematician would be hard-pressed to explain. The explanation for these phenomena is this: there is never a time when an equal number of men and women are in a room - someone is not fully male or female, whether because they are in a couple, or for some other reason (note, double dates are fine, as each person is fractional). If there are no people in a room, quantum mechanics states that the room does not actually exist (as it is not being observed), which explains why the equation gives the result of a completely nonsensical problem.

In conclusion, when Kira and I get bored at lunch, we do stupid, nerdy, but incredibly poignant things. Chris helped make the women's equation more specific than the original version.

I hate Math.

as soon as I saw that f(women)= (w(w+1))/2 + (w-p^3)
f(men)= m^(m/(m-(m-(w-p)))) thingy or whatever you wrote, my brain turned off

http://img247.imageshack.us/img247/5004/lowutyi4.jpg

Does it work for small animals?

I hate Math.

as soon as I saw that f(women)= (w(w+1))/2 + (w-p^3)
f(men)= m^(m/(m-(m-(w-p)))) thingy or whatever you wrote, my brain turned off

It's simple if you explain it:

All it is saying is that the function of women is equal to the amount of women multiplied by the amount of women plus 1. Then you simply add the amount of women again and take away the amount of women on their period cubed. Duhhh!

Similarly, the the second equation is stating that the function of men is equal to the amount of men to the power of the amount of men over the amount of men minus the amount of men minus the amount of women minus the amount of women on their period. It's so god damn simple!!!

No doubt it all =3.142 in the end.
Freaking pi! It's eating my brain!

RhynoDD;13504061']Some friends and I (mostly me) have come up with some very awesome formulas. These formulas describe the effective number of people (assuming they are interacting) in a room, given the number of individuals. The effective number of people is an admittedly vague term used in this case to refer to the level of energy and interaction going on. For reference: m is the number of individual men, w is the number of individual women, and p is the number of women on their period...What about a formula to tell me how many single -legal- females are in the room.. and a mathematical formula to calculate their probable phone numbers..

you and your friends might as well try to be useful ;)

Are you a paranoid schizophrenic, as well as a math whiz?

RhynoDD;13504061']f(women)= (w(w+1))/2 + (w-p^3)
f(men)= m^(m/(m-(m-(w-p))))
I hope you don't mind, but I've rearranged it to make it easier to think about:

f(women) = w + sum from i=1 to i=w (i) - p^3

f(men) = m^(m/w-p)

This has some bizarre outcomes. For instance, as the number of women in their period approaches the number of women, the number of effective men somehow explodes, which means that the optimum scenario is to kick any women not on their period out of the room while keeping as many men in as possible. I'm not sure about that, somehow.

The maximum effectiveness of the women in the room is determined entirely by how many females there are. Thus, logically, any individual woman has an effectiveness rating of 1 or 2 (if they're on their period or not). By contrast, the maximum effectiveness of males shrinks with the number of aperiodic women, such that a man on his own is actually infinitely effective. Again, this raises doubts.

RhynoDD;13504061']f(men)= m^(m/(m-(m-(w-p))))
Why not just write
f(men)= m^(m/(w-p))
instead of including superfluous operations?

It's simple if you explain it:

All it is saying is that the function of women is equal to the amount of women multiplied by the amount of women plus 1. Then you simply add the amount of women again and take away the amount of women on their period cubed. Duhhh!

Similarly, the the second equation is stating that the function of men is equal to the amount of men to the power of the amount of men over the amount of men minus the amount of men minus the amount of women minus the amount of women on their period. It's so god damn simple!!!

*stares blankly at Hydesland*

this thread broke my head. and not in a good way either.

Does it work for small animals?

Only if the animals weigh over 10.35lbs.

Why not just write
f(men)= m^(m/(w-p))
instead of including superfluous operations?

We actually tried that. Problem is that when there are no women the universe explodes (because you'd be dividing by zero and then taking something to that power). More importantly, it doesn't accurately describe what we wanted it to describe, which is that f(men) only increases exponentially when there are women around, and even then it depends on the ratio of men to women.

Are you a paranoid schizophrenic, as well as a math whiz?

I'm actually not a math whiz. In fact, I'm an English major.

As for paranoid schizo, well, no...but the point is being debated by the voices that are out to get me, so I'll get back to you on that.

Im sure this thread is somehow sexist, but I dont understnad whats going on, so I cant say how it is.

RhynoDD;13504419']We actually tried that. Problem is that when there are no women the universe explodes (because you'd be dividing by zero and then taking something to that power). More importantly, it doesn't accurately describe what we wanted it to describe, which is that f(men) only increases exponentially when there are women around, and even then it depends on the ratio of men to women.
The thing is, what you've done hasn't actually semantically changed the equation at all. What you might want to do is this:

f(men) = m x k^(1 / 1 + ((w - p)/ (1 + m) ) ) - c

for some currently unknown constants (k > 1) and (c > 0)

Im sure this thread is somehow sexist, but I dont understnad whats going on, so I cant say how it is.

Ya know, it got locked on the XKCD forum for being sexist. In all honesty, I'm trying to make fun of men as much as I am women.

The thing is, what you've done hasn't actually semantically changed the equation at all. What you might want to do is this:

f(men) = k^(1 / 1 - ((w - p)/ 1 + m ) ) - c

(for some currently unknown constants k and c)
The effect we wanted to achieve is this:
When it's just a bunch of guys in a room, the effective number increases linearly. IE: nothing gets too crazy unless there's just a shyte-ton of guys. But when a girl shows up, especially when the ratio is that there are way too few girls compared to guys, stuff goes crazy and the effective number goes up crazy exponentially.

IE: bunch of guys - kinda crazy, kinda stupid, not too bad. Bunch of guys and one (hot) girl - shit goes down. Hardcore.

Gaulph Rabi responded to the indolent questions of Ivanello: "...no confusion whatever! The Collegium is often known as 'the Convergence', or even as 'the Hub', in a jocular sense, of course. But the essence is identical."
"I fear you have the better of me," said Ivanello. "I am lost in a jungle of terminology."
"Aha! There speaks the voice of the layman! I will simplify!"
"Please do."
"Think of a set of imaginary spokes, representing between twenty and thirty infinites--the exact number is still uncertain. They converge in a focus of pure sentience; they intermingle then diverge in the opposite direction. The location of this 'Hub' is precisely known; it is within the precinct of the Collegium."
Varmous called out a question: "What does it look like?"
Gaulph Rabi gazed a long moment into the dying fire. "I think that I will not answer that question," he said at last. "I would create as many false images as there were ears to hear me."
"Half as many." Clissum pointed out delicately.
Ivanello smiled lazily up toward the night sky, where Alphard the Lonely stood in the ascendant. "It would seem that a single infinity would suffice for your studies. Is it not grandiose the preempt so many?"
Gaulph Rabi thrust forward his great narrow face. "Why not study for a term or two at the Collegium and discover for yourself?"
"I will give thought to the matter."

-Cugel's Saga, book three of the Dying Earth series.

I think Jared Diamond the writer of "Guns, germs, and steel" made a similar formula for detrmining the number of people to people interactions in a day.

I think Jared Diamond the writer of "Guns, germs, and steel" made a similar formula for detrmining the number of people to people interactions in a day.

I've not seen it. I would be interested, though. I'll have to look around for that one.

By contrast, the maximum effectiveness of males shrinks with the number of aperiodic women, such that a man on his own is actually infinitely effective.
Robinson Crusoe!
That would also explain why the arrival of Friday thwarted his efforts to make a beer distillery.

A question for this formula: Does it matter if the people in the room know about each other's presence? Say one has a particularly large room, in which two randomly chosen people could proceed through the evening without ever interacting with (or even seeing) each other, would they still count against (or for) each other's effectiveness?

formulas and people?
Never gonna work.
That's like the calculation for laughter, it just makes things even funnier.
nice try though.

Robinson Crusoe!
That would also explain why the arrival of Friday thwarted his efforts to make a beer distillery.

A question for this formula: Does it matter if the people in the room know about each other's presence? Say one has a particularly large room, in which two randomly chosen people could proceed through the evening without ever interacting with (or even seeing) each other, would they still count against (or for) each other's effectiveness?

It's based under the assumption that everyone in the room has some sort of contact with the other.

If this is supposed to be a factor about how wild a party can get, it also needs the alcohol factor. Is this a formula to determine how many women are on their period? When I read this, there are just so many questions.

If this is supposed to be a factor about how wild a party can get, it also needs the alcohol factor.
Alcohol would be a separate factor. IE: something along the lines of take whatever the initial equation gives you and multiply it by X or sommat.

Is this a formula to determine how many women are on their period? When I read this, there are just so many questions.
No, you just kind of have to ask. Women on their periods isn't really an arbitrary thing...you either are, or aren't.

A question for this formula: Does it matter if the people in the room know about each other's presence? Say one has a particularly large room, in which two randomly chosen people could proceed through the evening without ever interacting with (or even seeing) each other, would they still count against (or for) each other's effectiveness?

Such as a maniac hiding under the couch?

http://icanhascheezburger.files.wordpress.com/2007/09/128320993454987500dudewaitw.jpg


that makes like no sense to me. explain what the letters mean and it might, maybe...