If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Nerve)   Mathematicians are giving sex advice now. How hard could that be? Subtract clothes, divide legs, add penis, multiply   (advice.nerve.com) divider line 166
    More: Amusing, mathematicians, foreplay, smoking  
•       •       •

15383 clicks; posted to Main » on 12 Oct 2009 at 12:43 PM (4 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



166 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2009-10-11 01:34:07 PM
These mathmetaticians do it all in their head, though.
 
2009-10-11 01:46:59 PM
He had to work it out with a pencil!
 
2009-10-11 01:56:42 PM
I figured it out using a different method. But I still got the right answer.

+1 subby
 
2009-10-11 01:57:13 PM
imgs.xkcd.com

/obligatory
//9x - 7i > 9x - 21u
 
2009-10-11 02:40:10 PM
Things are okay until she wants you to cosine for something.
 
2009-10-11 02:59:11 PM
I like it when girls manipulate my vector.
 
2009-10-12 12:45:10 PM
whats 5q+5q?

ten q

you're welcome!!!

/you know you laughed.
 
2009-10-12 12:45:47 PM
Can I be your derivative?

I want to lie tangent to your curves.
 
2009-10-12 12:46:11 PM
figures
 
2009-10-12 12:46:56 PM
I was told there would be pi.
 
2009-10-12 12:47:11 PM
+1 subby

i LOL'd
 
2009-10-12 12:47:16 PM
Poontangent.
 
2009-10-12 12:47:27 PM
Just don't use the algorithm method.
 
2009-10-12 12:47:42 PM
Your lovemaking is neither complete nor consistent.
 
2009-10-12 12:47:57 PM
They do say that Math IS hard

and lonely
 
2009-10-12 12:48:08 PM
It's all about triangulation..... V


\\got nuttin
 
2009-10-12 12:48:41 PM
That pickup line has to rank as one of the worst of all time.
 
2009-10-12 12:48:48 PM
the proof is in the puddin'?
 
2009-10-12 12:49:48 PM
Johnny the Fox: Just don't use the algorithm method.

macroblog.typepad.com
 
2009-10-12 12:50:01 PM
Geez, get it right! It's "you plus me, minus the clothes, divide the legs, let's multiply!" Can't even get limericks on Fark right these days!

/my lawn
//off of it
 
2009-10-12 12:50:06 PM
I'm not very good at the maths, but I think I can manage that formula.
 
2009-10-12 12:51:31 PM
Johnny the Fox: Just don't use the algorithm method.

LOL! Well played.

This joke is integral to the story.
 
2009-10-12 12:51:51 PM
Nickle Nickle, Quarter, Dime....
(.) (.) V *
 
2009-10-12 12:52:24 PM
FTA: "I suspect you're one of those chicks who just yap-yap-yaps all the time, and men deal with this by saying nothing, tuning you out, and waiting for you to get bored of talking to yourself."

Guilty.

/tunes out
 
2009-10-12 12:52:32 PM
must be applied mathematics
 
2009-10-12 12:52:40 PM
Shouldn't "add alcohol" be in there somewhere in that equation?
 
2009-10-12 12:52:59 PM
This might be worth a look, maybe they are on to something. After all, mathematicians were the ones who were able to first prove what we all suspected:

descobrir.files.wordpress.com
 
2009-10-12 12:53:33 PM
Always a good time for this one
secretsocietyofenglishmajors.files.wordpress.com
 
2009-10-12 12:53:54 PM
img527.imageshack.us
 
2009-10-12 12:55:38 PM
but can they solve for Batman?
 
2009-10-12 12:57:07 PM
.
.
.
.Fapamaticians are giving sex advice now.....
 
2009-10-12 12:57:25 PM
maththinker.files.wordpress.com
 
2009-10-12 12:57:46 PM
Take the surface integral of her curves and hope it doesn't reach infinity.
 
2009-10-12 12:58:09 PM
All you need is less than three...
 
2009-10-12 12:59:24 PM
poehitman: Shouldn't "add alcohol" be in there somewhere in that equation?

Only if you or your prospective partner is "unfarkable"

\Beauty is only a 12-pak and a light switch away
 
2009-10-12 01:00:24 PM
Best headline in a while. +1.5 to submitter
 
2009-10-12 01:00:39 PM
ultraholland: but can they solve for Batman?

http://www.mymathgames.com/addition/batman/

He can solve for himself, it appears.
 
2009-10-12 01:01:47 PM
images.cafepress.com

Wasn't there a sexy math blogger out there somewhere?
 
2009-10-12 01:04:11 PM
Last One Left: /obligatory
//9x - 7i > 9x - 21u


i
/now i'm probably ghey
 
2009-10-12 01:04:59 PM
Kentucky Fried Children: http://www.mymathgames.com/addition/batman/

"Pinguin"? "Corect"? They should have taken an English course.
 
2009-10-12 01:07:39 PM
swaxhog

Came for that. Leaves Satisfied.

/Came again.
 
2009-10-12 01:07:59 PM
Don't forget to clear the screen on your Ti89.
 
2009-10-12 01:08:00 PM
Please excuse my dear aunt Sally, she just cringed after reading your headline.
 
2009-10-12 01:08:16 PM
webpages.charter.net

I feel dirty.
 
2009-10-12 01:08:25 PM
TFA: "Yeah, there are chicks like me who have brains and are well-groomed and dirty in bed and smoke dope with abandon."

www.meltingpotproject.com
 
2009-10-12 01:09:02 PM
OK, I took the basic premise of an XKCD strip and ran with it. Basically, the main idea is that you get older and the number of people who are single at your age declines. But you're allowed to date a wider age group of people as you get older without there being a creepy age difference. Thus, the available dating pool actually increases until age 40. So, there's no reason to rush into marriage thinking you'll be left out. I spent a one night a couple weeks ago combing through Federal Census data in an effort to write a semi-fake joke math paper on why my friends need to stop getting married early. Here are some excerpts:

The current median age of first marriage in the United States is 27 years old for males and 25 years old for females . As the friend demographic approaches the median, more and more couples feel the pressure to get married and stop being awesome. The reasoning behind this irrational behavior is as follows: if the couple does not marry soon, the available dating pool will shrink as more and more couples get married. This rationale leads to a lemming-like rush as thousands of couples rush headlong over the cliff into marriage in order to corner an acceptable partner.

This paper intends to prove that such haste is unnecessary, as the dating pool does not dwindle until middle age. The author takes into account the Standard Creepy Rule for Allowable Age Pairings (SCRAAP) when searching for the minimum acceptable age of prospective partners:

Min Age = (Current Age/2)+7 (Eq. 1)

Rearranging to determine the maximum equation yields:

Max Age = 2(Current Age - 7) (Eq. 2)

Finally, the authors are operating under the assumption that once a person reaches 65 years old, that person no longer belongs in society. Married or single, no one wants to see anyone's old wrinkly boobs (male or female, you've got them at that point). Plus, you're most likely just pooping yourself anyway and should probably just kill yourself. Henceforth, this conjecture will be referred to as the Logan's Run assumption.

i153.photobucket.com
Figure 2: Age range of acceptable partners clearly increases with age even with the added aspect of the Logan's Run assumption.

i153.photobucket.com
Figure 3: Breakdown of available singles by age group. Raw data indicates that there is a drop off in the number of singles in each individual group.

The next logical step is to cross-reference these last two pieces of data and note where the dateable population really begins to shrink. The results of our study are summarized in Figure 4. Of particular importance is to note that the number of available singles reaches a maximum at close to 40 years of age. These data contradict the traditional notion of getting married early for fear of being left as the last one standing in a horrible game of musical chairs. The traditional couple getting married at the median age of 26 is missing out on a substantial number of singles in their future dating pool. It should be noted that the authors make no claims as to the quality of the population in any particular grouping.

i153.photobucket.com
Figure 4: The available number of singles clearly continues to rise well into middle age reaching a maximum close to age 40, well above the median first marriage age of 26.
 
2009-10-12 01:09:11 PM
huh. pretty good advice, actually.
 
2009-10-12 01:10:04 PM
www.chevychasecentral.com

I was told there would be no math.
 
2009-10-12 01:11:15 PM
BioCritter: img527.imageshack.us

You forgot the (Beta)(Mu)(Pi) coefficient in front of the integral.
 
2009-10-12 01:14:33 PM
I show em how many times 8 goes into 0.
 
Displayed 50 of 166 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report