A proof

  • 🐕 I am attempting to get the site runnning as fast as possible. If you are experiencing slow page load times, please report it.

Smokedaddy

Finer than frogs' hair
Deceased
Retired Staff
kiwifarms.net
Joined
Mar 10, 2013
This is a formal derivation of a fact we all know, but almost no one can explain. I will get myself in trouble with some of the forumgoers here by pointing it out, but Truth is Truth no matter what one's personal prejudices are. Like a lot of proofs it ends up being absurdly simple, and anyone wishing to disprove with equal rigor is of course welcome to do so. Good luck with that.

(Since the forums don't allow super- or subscripting, and we lack such things as a square root sign, I'm writing this in a sort of C syntax, but that doesn't change what it shows.)

SMOKEDADDY'S THEOREM -- A SIMPLE PROOF:__________________________________

We begin by stating our axioms. This proof requires three:

  • Time is money.
  • Women require time and money. ("And" is used here in the Boolean algebraic sense, meaning "logical multiplication." Logical AND, not the bitwise variety.)
  • Money is the root of all evil.
Restated in C-ish syntax, sort of: (note: anything following a double slash to end of line is a comment, ignored by the compiler. That was originally a C++ convention, but all C compilers accept it -- as if there is any such thing as a vanilla C compiler anymore.)

time = money; // or if you want to use logical rather than algebraic terminology, (time == money) always returns nonzero.
women = time * money; // straightforward enough
money = sqrt( evil ); // you'll need to #include <math.h>, duh

Substituting the first axiom's value for time into the second:

women = money * money; // which would be money squared. Pro Tip: squaring a number by multiplying it by itself is far faster than calling the library routine that handles arbitrary exponents.

(Note that the variable "time" has been eliminated, so we're now down to just two terms.) Substituting the third axiom's value for money (the square root of evil) into the above, we get:

women = sqrt( evil ) * sqrt( evil );

Since (the square root of something)(squared) is just the something,

women = evil;

Q.E.D.
(hasty exit out the backstage door)
 
5wKBxpW.gif
 
I'm beginning think I know exactly whom it was that told the Loveshies that there were CWCki forumers among them.
 
Smokedaddy said:
This is a formal derivation of a fact we all know, but almost no one can explain. I will get myself in trouble with some of the forumgoers here by pointing it out, but Truth is Truth no matter what one's personal prejudices are. Like a lot of proofs it ends up being absurdly simple, and anyone wishing to disprove with equal rigor is of course welcome to do so. Good luck with that.

(Since the forums don't allow super- or subscripting, and we lack such things as a square root sign, I'm writing this in a sort of C syntax, but that doesn't change what it shows.)

SMOKEDADDY'S THEOREM -- A SIMPLE PROOF:__________________________________

We begin by stating our axioms. This proof requires three:

  • Time is money.
  • Women require time and money. ("And" is used here in the Boolean algebraic sense, meaning "logical multiplication." Logical AND, not the bitwise variety.)
  • Money is the root of all evil.
Restated in C-ish syntax, sort of: (note: anything following a double slash to end of line is a comment, ignored by the compiler. That was originally a C++ convention, but all C compilers accept it -- as if there is any such thing as a vanilla C compiler anymore.)

time = money; // or if you want to use logical rather than algebraic terminology, (time == money) always returns nonzero.
women = time * money; // straightforward enough
money = sqrt( evil ); // you'll need to #include <math.h>, duh

Substituting the first axiom's value for time into the second:

women = money * money; // which would be money squared. Pro Tip: squaring a number by multiplying it by itself is far faster than calling the library routine that handles arbitrary exponents.

(Note that the variable "time" has been eliminated, so we're now down to just two terms.) Substituting the third axiom's value for money (the square root of evil) into the above, we get:

women = sqrt( evil ) * sqrt( evil );

Since (the square root of something)(squared) is just the something,

women = evil;

Q.E.D.
(hasty exit out the backstage door)
1. If your core assumptions are wrong, (which I currently assess them to be) then your entire resultant hypothesis is flawed. Also, your biased subjectivity is blatantly obvious in your hypothesis.
2. You can't take the broad, subtle, philosophy of life, and condense it down to a simple algebraic formula or programming language.
3. In all due respect, I believe that your conclusion is erroneous.
 
Men require time and money, too. Between my boyfriend and myself, I'm the one with the job. (Although he's in school so it's excusable.)

We're all evil.
 
People are evil. This is why I hang out with animals.
 
skyraider91 said:
1. If your core assumptions are wrong, (which I currently assess them to be) then your entire resultant hypothesis is flawed. Also, your biased subjectivity is blatantly obvious in your hypothesis.
What "core assumptions?" i assume nothing. An axiom is not "assumed" but is rather accepted as fact by default in the metamathematical space in question. 1 + 1 = 2 is axiomatic for just about any predicate calculus you can name, unless you happen to be Bertrand Russel (and he was proven wrong by Gödel anyway.)

skyraider91 said:
2. You can't take the broad, subtle, philosophy of life, and condense it down to a simple algebraic formula or programming language.
I can't? I just did! It's somewhat disingenuous to discount something as impossible when a demonstration has been cast like pearls before you. As I said in the original post, i only used a programming language because of the notational restrictions imposed by the message board software, but it's translatable into any system you want. I guess I could do it in Mathematica and take a screenshot or something. Tell you what: I'll go traipse by Wolfram|alpha and see what it looks like there ifIfeellikeit.

skyraider91 said:
3. In all due respect, I believe that your conclusion is erroneous.
Why? Point out an error in the derivation and I'll defer to you, but a vague feeling of dislike doesn't disprove anything. I do admit that it only applies to real and simple complex number spaces (the square root of something squared isn't necessarily the something when dealing in quaternions, which not only have i as the square root of negative one but have other square roots of that) but I hardly see how a hypercomplex approach applies here, or whether it would even contradict the real-space solution in the first place. My guess is it'd bear out the original conclusion.

The fact remains that (the root of evil) raised to the second power is equal to evil. For brevity, I didn't point out how it behaves on the left (negative) side of the plane, but that only emphasizes the conculsion. To wit, the (square root of (X squared)) is not X, it's absolute X. (E.g. negative two squared equals four, right? The square root of four is two, the absolute value of the original parameter.) The strict answer is therefore ABSOLUTE EVIL, not just plain old evil. In real space, squaring is a sign-changing transform for negative numbers. (As opposed to cubing something, which preserves the sign.)

EVIL, PEOPLE, I TELL YOU. EVIL.
 
With all due respect Smokedaddy I fear I must dispute your proof.
Women = Evil. Ok , I can live with that one.
Women all have boobs , therefore ,
Women = Boobs , therefore ,
Boobs = Evil .
WRONG WRONG WRONG DOES NOT COMPUTE ERROR ERROR
Boobs are great.
 
  • Like
Reactions: OtterParty
Would anyone mind if I slayed Smokedaddy? If I do, do I get to replace him as admin?
 
Smokedaddy said:
skyraider91 said:
1. If your core assumptions are wrong, (which I currently assess them to be) then your entire resultant hypothesis is flawed. Also, your biased subjectivity is blatantly obvious in your hypothesis.
What "core assumptions?" i assume nothing. An axiom is not "assumed" but is rather accepted as fact by default in the metamathematical space in question. 1 + 1 = 2 is axiomatic for just about any predicate calculus you can name, unless you happen to be Bertrand Russel (and he was proven wrong by Gödel anyway.)

skyraider91 said:
2. You can't take the broad, subtle, philosophy of life, and condense it down to a simple algebraic formula or programming language.
I can't? I just did! It's somewhat disingenuous to discount something as impossible when a demonstration has been cast like pearls before you. As I said in the original post, i only used a programming language because of the notational restrictions imposed by the message board software, but it's translatable into any system you want. I guess I could do it in Mathematica and take a screenshot or something. Tell you what: I'll go traipse by Wolfram|alpha and see what it looks like there ifIfeellikeit.

skyraider91 said:
3. In all due respect, I believe that your conclusion is erroneous.
Why? Point out an error in the derivation and I'll defer to you, but a vague feeling of dislike doesn't disprove anything. I do admit that it only applies to real and simple complex number spaces (the square root of something squared isn't necessarily the something when dealing in quaternions, which not only have i as the square root of negative one but have other square roots of that) but I hardly see how a hypercomplex approach applies here, or whether it would even contradict the real-space solution in the first place. My guess is it'd bear out the original conclusion.

The fact remains that (the root of evil) raised to the second power is equal to evil. For brevity, I didn't point out how it behaves on the left (negative) side of the plane, but that only emphasizes the conculsion. To wit, the (square root of (X squared)) is not X, it's absolute X. (E.g. negative two squared equals four, right? The square root of four is two, the absolute value of the original parameter.) The strict answer is therefore ABSOLUTE EVIL, not just plain old evil. In real space, squaring is a sign-changing transform for negative numbers. (As opposed to cubing something, which preserves the sign.)

EVIL, PEOPLE, I TELL YOU. EVIL.
Your truth is truth only inside the rigid, closed, artificial system of logic and thought that you have created. It's silly to think that you can create a mathematical formula or program a computer to develop an all encompassing description of the philosohy of life.
A computer or a math formula can't tell you why or how a painting is beautiful, or that all women are evil.
There are somethings that are beyond math and logic. Both are usful tools, but have their limitations.
Also, Smokedaddy, quit trolling.
 
Maybe the Pandora's box is what gave women boobs?
 
Dear Smokedaddy,

1998 called and want's it's joke back.

Sincerely,
Zim

PS - AUGH YEAH

(just messing with you)
 
Back