• Hi Guest!
    You can help ensure that British Car Forum (BCF) continues to provide a great place to engage in the British car hobby! If you find BCF a beneficial community, please consider supporting our efforts with a subscription.
    There are some perks with a member upgrade!
    **Upgrade Now**
    (PS: Subscribers don't see this gawd-aweful banner
Tips
Tips

It all adds up now

Share this page

KLUTZ

KLUTZ

Luke Skywalker
Country flag
Offline
5b438823.jpg
 
BRILLIANT!

Now, let the games begin...

/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/cheers.gif Mickey
 
ROFL!
 
I'm not touching this one - hehehehehe
 
I am now on Xanax so I'm going to kindly remind you that the first person that ever Loved and took care of you was (BIG SUPRISE) A WOMAN-YOUR mother. iF SHE IS STILL LIVING WHY DON'T YOU MAKE HER PROUD OF YOU..... AND MAIL YOUR EQUATION TO HER. medS pAUL mEDS Randi
 
WHO marked THIS?

The initial statement of needing time AND money in order to find a woman does NOT equate to:

woman = time x money.

it is instead:

woman = time <font color="red">+ </font> money

While the algebraic manipulation that follows is correct the intitial quantification of the problem statement is plainly incorrect.

QED. In consideration of such a simple, basic error a more appropriate grade:

<font color="red"> F- </font>

Does Randi agree?

Am I safe? /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/jester.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/devilgrin.gif

Its not easy being pedantic.... /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif
 
[ QUOTE ]

Its not easy being pedantic.... /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

oh, I dunno...
 
With women, the longer you are with one, the more money it costs. Therefore, there is a linear or geometric relationship between time and money when a women is involved, not a simple arithmetic one. As is often done in these situations, assumptions are made, and I believe time vs. money is a realistic one.
 
so... would that make the time vs. money spent with women a logarithmic function? I don't think it would be an exponential function... However, the more I think about it the more I think it would depend on the woman you're with... Her cost of living with may be logarithmic or it may be exponential....
 
Me pie-hole is now stapled shut.

Whoops! ...beer thru a straw, hmmm... Not the best plan I've ever had... /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/hammer.gif
 
James wrote:

WHO marked THIS?

The initial statement of needing time AND money in order to find a woman does NOT equate to:

woman = time x money.

it is instead:

woman = time + money

While the algebraic manipulation that follows is correct the intitial quantification of the problem statement is plainly incorrect.

QED. In consideration of such a simple, basic error a more appropriate grade:

Apparently James has little experience with women. If you have time and no money, you have no woman. Or if you hve money and no time, again no women. If you use his theorom, women =time + money, you see that either time or m oney could be zero, and you would still have woman. However, if you use the original formula, woman = time x money, if either is zero. there is no woman.
 
then you just need the money... blondes can't work the math problem anyway - hehehehehehe. <ducks n hides>
 
and I'm given to understand they have an uncanny knack for SPENDING it. I wouldn't know. The only blonde women I ever went out with found I didn't HAVE the preferred side of the equation. Time was of NO interest to 'em.
 
[ QUOTE ]
Apparently James has little experience with women. If you have time and no money, you have no woman. Or if you hve money and no time, again no women. If you use his theorom, women =time + money, you see that either time or m oney could be zero, and you would still have woman. However, if you use the original formula, woman = time x money, if either is zero. there is no woman.

[/ QUOTE ]

It was meant to be a jokey response in "formal" logic to a joke framed in terms of logic..

As I said: Its hard being pedantic (interpreting said joke in a narrow and unduly precise manner); precisely because people don't get the joke in return.

Did you all not see the little /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/jester.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/devilgrin.gif

do I have to shout:

THIS TOO IS A JOKE

As for your proof it too is nonsense.

I presume you may have endured the common male experience of expending great amount of both time and money without the reward of a woman as the formula dictates...

If not, you may have even less expeience of women than I....

I'll say no more on this.
 
Well once again gentlemen I am not Blonde. I support us-!!! my husband got a Harley for Christmas and he isn't blonde either. The substance of life is any equasion that you make it and yes James I understood it was a joke. My wrath is only reserved for those who believe that drivel.
 
I never imagined that anyone didn't think it was a joke....

Despite AngliaGT's jest for a mathematical counter some people took that amiss.

Of course, if the problem had been rephrased as: Women are the product of time and money; then, it works .... /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif

but ... forget I said that /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/devilgrin.gif

please /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/jester.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/jester.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/jester.gif
 
Back
Top