Sleepyjack

I was reading through this thread and was wondering about some or any mathematical equations anyone applies to their own dating game. Or even perhaps a universal set of mathematical ideas that should govern the dating the game. Of course i am not being particulary serious here (as always ), but do you have any numbers you apply to your own dating game which are always the same.

For example, in the thread i mention above they were throwing around this equaiton that the youngest eprson you should date is governed by: age/2 + 7

So, myself being nineteen would be
19/2 + 7 = 16.5 and we then round that to the nearest even hehe, so it's 16.

ALthough why the divide 2 and plus 7?
are those numbers whimisically pulled from somewhere?

Although any other numbers you play by no matter the circumstance. Illustrating with more example, maybe the number of dates before you kiss, sleep with someone. The number of times you try to call someone or allow someone to call you.
Any other numbers that pop up or equations you use. Also applies to people in couples, number of times you expect or like to have sex a week or something? i am scraping the bottom of the barrel for more examples.....

Being a software engineer (or apsiring to be ) we do quite a bit of quantification of qualitative things (ie software), so i have a sort of geek interst in this aswell

Although i don't really apply mainly numerical things to it myself, anyone else?

Redlemon

There were some good examples of this (regarding ability to concentrate versus time since last orgasm, with modifiers depending upon the provider of the orgasm) in Cryptonomicon by Neil Stephenson. I don't have it handy, and it would require graphs and a lot of text to explain anyway.

__________________
I can't read your signature. Sorry.

phukraut

if my parents did the age/2+7, i would not have been born.. maybe it should rather be age/2 +/- 7!

MrFlux

So a 2 year old would be fair game for an 18 year old? Thats... wrong, to say the least

__________________
flux (n.)
Medicine. The discharge of large quantities of fluid material from the body, especially the discharge of watery feces from the intestines.

bundy

i´m 23...
so 23/2 + 7 = (**looks frantically for fucking calculator**) 18.5.

so i can only date a girl as young as 18.5 ??

damn!! that isn´t going to suit my taste... j/k

by the same token, does this mean that to figure out how much older a person can date is...

(23x2) - 7 = 39...

wow.

how can they expect anyone to take this little equation seriously. i mean, if you like someone, date them... or kiss them or whatever, (as long as they´re legal) age isn´t an issue.

__________________
Ohayo!!!

anti fishstick

hmmm perhaps the number 7 is an implication on the meaning of life. 7 comes out in a lot of things. and paul (mccartney) did say there are 7 levels

in any case, 20/2 + 7 would make it 17. too young for me :P

__________________
And the day came when the risk to remain tight in a bud was more painful than the risk it took to blossom.
~Anais Nin

Nazggul

The only mathmatecal equation or set of theories that apply to my dating is Chaos Theory. I've yet to figure all this stuff out. =/

__________________
"If something has to give then it always will."

-- Editors

hobo

Heh, nice. Ya, the Chaos Theory applies to everything.

stingc

Heh. This reminds of my math major roommate junior year. He had a crush on this girl, and proceeded to write down and solve a set of differential equations modeling when the optimal time to ask her out would be. He was semi-serious too! So he eventually asks her out, and it turned out that she already had a boyfriend - for over six months. He called it an error in his initial conditions

Sledge

That is adorable.

Sleepyjack

lol, this is gold.

Back in high school, when we more commonly refered to girls in numbers, quite shallow i know, a friend divised a program which would calulate the probablity of sleeping with someone based on how many drink's you've had. Pretty basic stuff, but it was good for a luagh at the time. At no point did i take it seriously though.

on a sorta of unrealted note, i sent this to a friend a while back in a measn of quantifying what's the best drink for you. I had a bit of time on my hands.....


As for drinks, it would be interesting to one day, form an analysis using
graphs and other techniques to try and objectivly measure a better drink,
rather than arbitarily saying "i like X better cause i say so".
i've done this quite a bit recently at uni, in anaysing software and
gathering metrics to determine, basically how good it is (in simpler terms).
And it has become quite applicable to anything you want to measure which
genrally has a subjective nature. A basic way of doing this would be to
measure the alchohol density per can or conatiner (eg a 5% woody at 440ml is
22 units of alcohol)
(excuse the maths, im doing it quite hurriedly)
measure the cost per unit of alcohol. ie a 4 pack of woodies is 4*22 = 88
units of alchol for $10 (say a 4 pack cost 10)
then its 88/10 = 8.8 units of alchol per dollar
then subjectily assign a multiplier to multiply this quantatative value.
This multiplier could be determined by adding a few subjective fields
together.

possible fields:
how much you like it (rate it 1-5 ---> 5 = love it, 1 = taste like shit)
how embarrased you'd be to be seen with it (1-5 ---> 5= not embarrased,
almost proud 1=i hope no one sees me)
the look/feel of the container(1-5 ---> 5=handles and looks great 1=my hand
hurts or poor marketing design)
useful disscussion about the particular drink with other people at the party
(1-5 ---> 5= talk of the party 1=bland/uninteresting)

when rating this multiplier obviously the subjective fields have a different
level of importance, so they're multiplied as well by universally accepted
constants. Eg the look and feel of the conatainer should be considered less
important than the taste, so you give less percent of the total value you're
multiplying with the original quantifiable value you obtained. This value
could then show which drink is better for the given criteria. The universal
constants, aren't so universal, i subjectivly assigned them for arguements
sake. ie how much you like it has a multiplier of 10 (to my subjective value
assigned), emabarrasment is less important so i'll say a 5, look feel is
less important perhaps a 1, and conversation about the drink is about 2.
This is done so if a drink tastes really bad but has a good look and feel,
its not considered as good as a drink with good taste and bad look feel.
Perhaps you didn't understand that, its quite complicated to explain so i'll
clear it up with an example:

ok i have my pack of 4 woodies with a quantifiable (ie anyone who measures
this will get the same result) 8.8 units of alchol per dollar.
now for the multiplier:
these are purely my subjective values (as for anyone rating their drink)
multiplied by my subjective universal constant (as above) to get the
subjective multiplier.
here we go---->
i kinda like woodies, so i'll give it a 3.5 out of 5 with a multiplier of 10
is equal to 35
the embarrasment of woddies isn't so much so i'll give it a 3.5 again,
multiplied by my constant of 5 is 17.5
the look feel of the can isn't particulary great, its kinda large so i'll
give it a 3, by the universal multiplier of 1 is 3
the novelty/disscussion of the drink is also not much so i'll give it a 2,
by my universal multiplier 2 is equal to 4.

now we have 4 subjective values based on this 4 criteria and there
subjective importance to the overall decision of how good the drink is. Now
we add these up 35+17.5+3+4 = 59.5 now this becomes our overall subjective
multiplier.
59.5*8.8 = 3540.25 goodness per dollar in an alcoholic drink

so i could graph woodies as a 3540 goodness per dollar ( i know goodness is
not really a word, but hopefully you get what i mean) and then compare it to
other drinks i evaluated to determine the best drink for my dollar. Of
course you could subjectivly measure the best overall (where money becomes
irrelevant), but i feel you need some objective criteria to even things out
more, in the grand scheme of things.

analog

That's fucking hilarious... the whole thing, too, but most especially that line.

No, I hate numerology and stuff like that, because that says to me that there is a "set" of possibilities, and it's already "predetermined".

We ALL live in a world of inifinite possibilities not bound by numbers or stars or tea leaves or groundhogs seeing shadows or "signs" or any of that (in MY opinion) nonsense and bullshit.

You want something good to believe in? Believe in yourself, in your ability to be happy, and your ability to make others happy.

perth1

speaking of equations... slightly off topic, and most of you have probably already seen it, but this made me chuckle:

skysooner

Sleepy,

We used the same thing. We called it the Beer Equivalent scale where 1 beer=1 shot. The more you drank, the better people look generally. On this scale, when a girl was a 10, that wasn't good. That's how much you would have to drink to want to sleep with them. I haven't used this in years of course, but it was funny in college.