An excellent equation

TheHighbrow

TheHighbrow

New member
This is an equation that describes much of the universe:

A = 60 / B

Whereas A is equivalent to the intelligence of an individual

B is equivalent to boob (sic) size

And 60 is the constant

Breast size is inversely proportional to brains.

It seems that having breasts somehow "takes" material that would otherwise be used for intelligence and the refining of taste. This explains why women with larger chests have smaller minds. It also explains why men have a higher intrinsic aptitude of intelligence than women.

I'll thankyou for considering my opinion today, good sirs.
 
Last edited:
Ah, it's Professor Von X.

You know what one of your greatest countrywoman wrote about him, yes?

"It was the face and figure of Professor von X engaged in writing his monumental work "the Mental, Moral, and Physical Inferiority of the Female Sex." He was not in my picture a man attractive to women. He was heavily built; he had a great jowl; to balance that he had very small eyes; he was very red in the face. His expression suggested that he was labouring under some emotion that made him jab his pen on the paper as if he were killing some noxious insect as he wrote, but even when he killed it that did not satifsy him; he must go on killing it. Had he ben laughed at, to adopt the Freudian theory, in his cradle by a pretty girl? For even in his cradle, the professor could not have been an attractive child. Whatever the reason, the professor was made to look very angry and very ugly in my sketch, as he wrote his great book upon the inferiority of women."
 
TheHighbrow said:
This is an equation that describes much of the universe:

A = B / k

Whereas A is equivalent to the intelligence of an individual

B is equivalent to boob (sic) size

And k is the constant

Breast size is inversely proportional to brains.

It seems that having breasts somehow "takes" material that would otherwise be used for intelligence and the refining of taste. This explains why women with larger chests have smaller minds. It also explains why men have a higher intrinsic aptitude of intelligence than women.

I'll thankyou for considering my opinion today, good sirs.
Click to expand...

Any other math heads figure out that he stated the (supposed) conclusion incorrectly?

And of course to be obtuse, he chose a less than optimal form in which to express the equation. Let's try using k' = 1/k and substitute; thus A= k' B (a clearer format for this medium).
 
Last edited:
TheHighbrow said:
This is an equation that describes much of the universe:

A = B / k

Whereas A is equivalent to the intelligence of an individual

B is equivalent to boob (sic) size

And k is the constant

Breast size is inversely proportional to brains.

It seems that having breasts somehow "takes" material that would otherwise be used for intelligence and the refining of taste. This explains why women with larger chests have smaller minds. It also explains why men have a higher intrinsic aptitude of intelligence than women.

I'll thankyou for considering my opinion today, good sirs.
Click to expand...
you are using the wrong definition of "Boob" for your equation. it should be referring to people like you.
 
Troglodyte27 said:
Any other math heads figure out that he stated the (supposed) conclusion incorrectly?

And of course to be obtuse, he chose a less than optimal form in which to express the equation. Let's try using k' = 1/k and substitute; thus A= k' B (a clearer format for this medium).
Click to expand...

Of course, the proper mathmatical form (is such it can be considered )would be

A=Bk (B "times" K, not divided by k)
 
doniston said:
Of course, the proper mathmatical form (is such it can be considered )would be

A=Bk (B "times" K, not divided by k)
Click to expand...
The way he expressed it - (dependent variable) A is scalar multiple (by k) of B (independent variable), therefore, bigger boobs => bigger brains.

Highbrow has tiny boobs.
 
Last edited:
Darla said:
LOL. Really? Well, that's funny.
Click to expand...

Yes, the constants K and K' are irrelevant to the relationship of A to B. In the equation he stated A= B/k, the relationship of A to B is: an increase in B causes an increase in A, and a decrease in B causes a decrease in A. That is direct proportionality, and his supposed conclusion is incorrect.


I called K a proportionality constant in a previous post. Though that is not incorrect, to avoid confusion, it should really be reffered to as a scaling constant. I corrected by editing the previous post.
 
Last edited:
Troglodyte27 said:
Yes, the constants K and K' are irrelevant to the relationship of A to B. In the equation he stated A= B/k, the relationship of A to B is: an increase in B causes an increase in A, and a decrease in B causes a decrease in A. That is direct proportionality, and his supposed conclusion is incorrect.


I called K a proportionality constant in a previous post. Though that is not incorrect, to avoid confusion, it should really be reffered to as a scaling constant.
Click to expand...

Thanks...before you clarified that, I was confused. ;)

I think this was someone trolling for fun, and not serious, but who knows?
 
Darla said:
Ah, it's Professor Von X.

You know what one of your greatest countrywoman wrote about him, yes?

"It was the face and figure of Professor von X engaged in writing his monumental work "the Mental, Moral, and Physical Inferiority of the Female Sex." He was not in my picture a man attractive to women. He was heavily built; he had a great jowl; to balance that he had very small eyes; he was very red in the face. His expression suggested that he was labouring under some emotion that made him jab his pen on the paper as if he were killing some noxious insect as he wrote, but even when he killed it that did not satifsy him; he must go on killing it. Had he ben laughed at, to adopt the Freudian theory, in his cradle by a pretty girl? For even in his cradle, the professor could not have been an attractive child. Whatever the reason, the professor was made to look very angry and very ugly in my sketch, as he wrote his great book upon the inferiority of women."
Click to expand...

Yes, that's an almost perfect description of my physique, although I like to think of myself as somewhat more muscular. Uncanny how you picked up that article with that description.

Women are unfortunately not as smart as men. Hey, it's science.
 
Troglodyte27 said:
The way he expressed it - (dependent variable) A is scalar multiple (by k) of B (independent variable), therefore, bigger boobs => bigger brains.

Highbrow has tiny boobs.
Click to expand...

Yes, I meant to switch around A and B or somenot. Stop interfering in my greater goals with your useless conflabergations.
 
TheHighbrow said:
Yes, that's an almost perfect description of my physique, although I like to think of myself as somewhat more muscular. Uncanny how you picked up that article with that description.

Women are unfortunately not as smart as men. Hey, it's science.
Click to expand...

It's not an article. That is Virginia Woolf writing in "A Room of One's Own".

I'm surprised, being so smart, you didn't know that.
 
TheHighbrow said:
Yes, I meant to switch around A and B or somenot. Stop interfering in my greater goals with your useless conflabergations.
Click to expand...
Get it right. It will help your credibility. I'll bet you're not smart enough to figure out how to state properly the equation you had hoped to describe.

Go for it, surprise me.

And what is a conflabergation?
 
Last edited:
Darla said:
It's not an article. That is Virginia Woolf writing in "A Room of One's Own".

I'm surprised, being so smart, you didn't know that.
Click to expand...

Virginia Woolf, very interesting person with drounding herself with the stones and such. I read "The Waves" once. Didn't understand a single sentence. She wasn't good on writing for sense.
 
Troglodyte27 said:
Get it right. It will help your credibility. I'll bet you're not smart enough to figure out how to state properly the equation you had hoped to describe.

Go for it, surprise me.
Click to expand...

But I did state it. With words. Words and math are the same thing in different forms. I was hoping you would be able to understand that.
 
TheHighbrow said:
But I did state it. With words. Words and math are the same thing in different forms. I was hoping you would be able to understand that.
Click to expand...
Translation: No, I can't.

The problem with words is that your words conflict with your other form of words of the same thing that isn't, but is the same thing in a non-contradictory but rather contrarian sense of the word. I was hoping you would be able to understand that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top