The proof that women are evil!

[Niles09]

This is mathematic proof that completly proofs the cruelty of women!

 Women require time and money  
Women = time x money
 Now everyone knows that time IS money
Women = money x money => women = money2
 Everyone knows as well that money is the root of all evil
women = the root of (money2) => women = evil!

Hah! There it is - bulletproof!

[miltonyorkcastle]

*grins*  I used to write that little 'proof' all over the the chalkboards in the math department at Texas Tech.

That, and, "Die, Nerd Boy!"  

[platinuuhits]

That's crazy but true!  

[Ne'er]

I did that proof out in my math class.... some thought it was funny, but since the majority of the class were woman, it didn't go so well.... *shrugs* Oh well. Can't argue with the facts.

[Niles09]

oh thats the point of it all! Dont show them the proof, they are evil so they've go crazy;)

[Harloff]

hmmm... i see one major flaw in this evidence, it is correct that women take time and money no argumen there, but that is not the same as women being equal to time x money.

Perhaps it would be more appropriate to see women as a function of time and money.

Women(time,money)

which will lead to the conclusion that women are a function of evil

women(evil)

yet i am unsure on how to enterprete this result...

[Niles09]

ahh simple
f(x) = x
f(time x money) = time x money

or even better:

f = women:
fwomen(time x money) = time x money!
 
then a must be women so if there is 10 women it would be

fwomen(time x money) = 10 x time x money!

wich is logical, becuase the more they are, the more evil!

[Meizter]

I think we should also take into consideration that women take time and money, the important word here being and. this gives: women = time + money. As time = money we get that women = 2money and not money^2. if we want our previous statement (time and money = money^2) to be true we have to define that "and" multiplies and not adds, which I see as a problem.

[Harloff]

Niles09 - 11/24/2005  2:26 PM

ahh simple
f(x) = x
f(time x money) = time x money

but there is no evidence that the functionality of f(x) is x, it could be minus x as well. furthermore, woman are a function of time and monay but there is no evidence that the dependency is

women=time x money

it could just as well be

women=time + money

or

women=exp(time + money)

[Meizter]

I will agree with you Harloff there is indeed a possibility that we have an exponential function here. But to determine this relationship we would need to create an empirical model of the women, money, time, evil.  I suggest the following tests be carried out with the variables being time and money, and evil as the dependent variable.  time, money little, little little, medium little, lots medium, little medium, medium medium, lots lots, little lots, medium lots, lots  after each experiment the amount of evil is evaluated on an evil-scale that is yet to be determined. but I would suggest a scale from 1 to 10 to have a good resolution in the results.   I would also recommend at least 3 experiments at each combination to determine the variance in the results. also the experiments should be carried out in a randomized order to exclude any effects of order.  from these tests we should be able to get a better understanding of the women, money, time, evil relationship.

[s0ulz]

That's some quantum stuff guys, you should give classes or something
Seriously, the truth is out there and I believe I've seen this kind of theory been presented already.

[Ne'er]

*scratches head*

Okay, I was pretty sure was just a joke. Not sure if I'm missing something, but the idea wasn't to ACTUALLY be correct, just funny. Anyway, with that said... it is interesting to see some of the things you guys come up with.

[Meizter]

now a small addendum to this

First of all Harloff will be posting the values needed for testing shortly and then we need volounteers to perform the experiments.

the scale used for the evil-evaluation should be as follows

10: divorce!
5: no change
1: positive response to "gimme some sugar baby" and general lack of evil
EDIT: THIS SCALE IS OBSOLETE

The results of this will be treated in a proper scientific manner to create a model for the relationship we are examining. If we get a satisfactory high R^2 value we can hopefully do our conclusions otherwise we need to include more factors in the experiments. These factors are: surprise dinner/present/flowers/etc., time of month and distance to relatives to name some.

Furthermore a thought that has occurred to me is that perhaps women are better described as a type of PID controller for the output of evil. But to determine if this is true we need to determine optimal PID values for women. The problem is that to get the right values we need to have the system ossilating, which indeed can be very dangerous due to evil output.

[Harloff]

*nods* I see your points Meizter but before we can start testing we really need to define evil. And in order to do the experiments I think the simplest would be to measure it on an mood scale going from (-10)-10 having 0 as "neither angry nor happy" mood, -10 as the "I want a divorce" mood and 10 as "you are my hero (and then she tears of her cloth)" mood. That way we could get a veery good resolution of the results without making assumptions on women being evil in general. If we end up with a model predicting general positive values we will then have proven that women are indeed not evil. This will of course have to be subject to general 95 % confidence intervals.

With respect to test subjects of all cultures entering this test I suggest we use standard time and money scales: time is measured in hours, and money is measured as a share of monthly salery after taxes. That way we should be able to compare people from different contries, having different tax systems and all.

[Meizter]

Yes indeed Harloff that scale is better so the new scale for evil evaluation is:

10 "you are my hero (and then she tears of her cloth)" mood
0 "neither angry nor happy" mood
-10 "I want a divorce" mood

[Harloff]

Meizter - 11/24/2005  2:52 PM  time, money little, little little, medium little, lots medium, little medium, medium medium, lots lots, little lots, medium lots, lots

 I see no reason why we shouldn't add none and all to this experiment giving us a new experimental set.  time, money none, none none, litlle none, medium none, lots none, all little, none little, little little, medium little, lots little, all medium, none medium, little medium, medium medium, lots medium, all lots, none lots, little lots, medium lots, lots lots, all all, none all, little all, medium all, lots all, all  Where the time table is given relative to spare time, and money is given relative to your monthly income after taxes, bills and so on. all= 100% lots= 75% medium=50%  little=25 % none=0 %  WARNING!  We are not taking any responsebilety if people try the "none,none" option and end with "I want a divorce". All test subjects entering this test must give a written statement that will not sue us in any case before entering the test. Furthermore, this is science and sacrifices can be necessary.

[Meizter]

yes of course the none and all options are a good addition to the experimental set. I did not add them to avoid unpleasant situations where we indeed would observe -10 on our scale. Still I must give in and say it is all in the name of science. But we take no responsibilities for the outcome of experiments[/B].  A disclaimer of liability will be posted later, and must be read and agreed to by all test subjects.

[Jilseponie Wyndon]

*Just raises an eyebrow and shakes her head*

[Jilseponie Wyndon]

*Just raises an eyebrow and shakes her head*

[freemen2]

I think she's trying to tell you guys that you forgot the redundency factor or R, in yer equation.