Harvard Math
Given recent developments in my romantic life, this emailed graphic from a friend really resonated for me.
October 19, 2005
48 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
| Contact: |
|
Complex problems have simple, easy to understand wrong answers.
- Grossman’s Law
Comment by Strawberry — October 19, 2005 @ 12:09 pm
A+ for execution, D- for oversimplification and leaving out units.
Comment by chris_radcliff — October 19, 2005 @ 2:10 pm
Of course. It is Harvard math, not MIT math.
Comment by Dick — October 19, 2005 @ 2:17 pm
I have heard this one before.
However it was that "money is the root of all evil".
Comment by anonymous — October 21, 2005 @ 10:12 am
Sat Oct 22, 2005 at 5:52 PM Woman=Problems. Some algebra (intended humorously I assume) courtesy of Dick Hardt proves that Woman=Problems. Tip of the hat to cameron reilly…. …
Trackback by Anonymous — October 22, 2005 @ 4:52 pm
So once you get woman, then this usually leads to children. So therefore if Man+Woman=children, and Woman=problems, then logically wouldn’t a man without a woman be childlike?
Comment by Nick — October 23, 2005 @ 8:11 pm
Interesting. This is not Marc Canter. How did Sxore prevent my abusing this?
Comment by marccanter — October 24, 2005 @ 2:00 pm
Now when I was in university that would have been a great example of "false logic".
Found this site by way of a friend linking to your presentation on Identity, which I really enjoyed.
Comment by DawnakaPinkLady — October 24, 2005 @ 5:00 pm
Wed Oct 26, 2005 at 3:22 AM Beweis, dass Frauen Probleme machen von Robert Basic, 26.10.2005 - 12:39 abgelegt unter: Entspannungvia Dick Hardt - Blame Canada Keine Kommentare bisher »—RSS Feed zu diesem Artikelund die …
Trackback by Anonymous — October 26, 2005 @ 2:22 am
Wed Oct 26, 2005 at 3:22 AM Beweis, dass Frauen Probleme machen von Robert Basic, 26.10.2005 - 12:39 abgelegt unter: Entspannungvia Dick Hardt - Blame Canada Keine Kommentare bisher »—RSS Feed zu diesem Artikelund die …
Trackback by Anonymous — October 26, 2005 @ 2:22 am
That was good.
So if I had 2 women would they cancel each other out or would I have problems to the 4th and no money? or whaaa…
I’ma scarred!
Comment by Ranzu — October 26, 2005 @ 12:19 pm
Let’s see, following that logic:
Man+Woman=Child
Woman= Problems
Man+Problems=Child
Yes, that does make sense!
Comment by Dick — October 27, 2005 @ 2:11 pm
Good point! … a future feature will show wether the identity we have is tied to the URL.
Comment by Dick — October 27, 2005 @ 2:12 pm
I think you would end up with Double the Trouble!
Comment by Dick — October 27, 2005 @ 2:16 pm
Sometimes they have the right answer as well Strawberry! (nothing personal of course)
Comment by Dick — October 27, 2005 @ 2:25 pm
In this case I’m not sure we fully understood Dick’s actual problem - his initial focus was on recent developments in his romantic life.
If we say Romance (R) is the product of Woman (W) * Time (T) * Money (M) *, then we have R = T * M * W
Clearly, if any of T, M or W is missing or is very small, then R will not be much to talk about either.
Einstein’s famous formula E = mc2 has showed that the energy of a system depends of how much ( m - mass) you put into it. Luckily for us with little time and/or little money, c2 is a very large constant and thus even putting a bit into a system should (or at least can) create a larger amount of energy.
In mathematical terms, if we say that even a little bit of time and money creates a fair bit of energy and that a measurement of romance is the energy created in the system, then we have E = T*M*W. Thus, in cases where T and M are small, I’m left to conclude that R (=E=T*M*W) really depends on the W (woman) and that time and money really have little to do with it.
Of course, there might be an error in my formula that requires further research by this forum. For example, it is interesting to note that even in cases where the W(oman) is not really into the relationship, that T and M can still create R(omance) - as long as W is present and not negative.
Comment by Roar — November 1, 2005 @ 12:14 am
Great analysis!
Comment by Dick — November 2, 2005 @ 8:46 am
Heh.
Comment by Jos — November 3, 2005 @ 10:36 am
Heh?
Comment by Dick — November 3, 2005 @ 11:25 am
lol
Comment by Carlos — November 21, 2005 @ 5:58 pm
I saw this years ago, so I apologize if I misquote:
Power = Work / Time
Knowledge = Power
Time = Money
Rearrange to find:
Money = Work / Knowledge
Which explains that you can either work hard to be rich, or you can know very little.
This is why we think our bosses are idiots, because incompetance rises to the top…
Comment by Tom — November 22, 2005 @ 5:29 pm
My first sxore comment. I will remember this forever and ever.
And here’s the comment: when I scrolled down to find the comment I found I was rather put off by the link "sxore: comment, rate, tag, or follow this post". It was the word "sxore". If they don’t know what it means then you’ll undoubtedly turn some people off. And if they do, does it really add any value? The only reason to add it here is if you think it will cause some people to click who wouldn’t otherwise, and not convince anyone not to click who otherwise would have. After all, anyone who clicks through is about to see your branding anyway. No reason to foreshadow.
If you must have it, I recommend you instead make the link something like
"comment, rate, tag, or follow this post using sxore"
That way you’re not burying the lead, which is definitely "comment".
Comment by Bill — December 7, 2005 @ 4:26 pm
More usability feedback: why on earth am I being asked to rate my own post? Given my high opinion of myself, is there a chance I am going to give it anything other than five stars? Or maybe you’ll have lots of low self-esteem people giving themselves one or two stars, then committing suicide. Do you want to be responsible for that?
Comment by Bill — December 7, 2005 @ 4:38 pm
WOW! My first comment from Bill! I will remember this forever and ever. … we thought people would wonder what sxore was, and the following words say what will happen — but as always, you are THE expert in UX, so we will take your comments seriously.
Comment by Dick — December 7, 2005 @ 9:16 pm
You are rating my post.
Comment by Dick — December 7, 2005 @ 9:16 pm
What I want to do right now is respond to Dick’s response to my last comment, but apparently I can’t do that. I realize this isn’t meant to be a message board, but on second thought at this point what’s the difference any more?
So anyway, apparently ‘Rate this post" applies to the posting and not my comment. I just realized I did it again when it came to tagging - I tagged my own comment, which made perfect sense to me at the time.
Perhaps commenting is a different modality than message boards, but I would venture a guess that newbies wouldn’t get that. I think of what I’m writing as a post. Depending on that kind of arbitrary naming scheme can get you in trouble, and here I think it does.
Instead, let the flow of the page help the user figure out what goes with what. With your gray bars you broke the page visually into two pieces - the original post and my input. I would put the tag, rating, and follow parts into the first piece. Even though they are technically my input, they feel like they are properties of the posting. Whereas my comment feels very much like mine, and belongs under my name.
This is fairly easily done - the rating starts can even go on the same line as the post name and show/hide excerpt. Just like Netflix.
That’s one idea. Another is to ignore my worthless advice.
(Oh, I’m about to leave, and realizing that since I’ve already tagged and rated your posting those tags and rating should show up now. Just another reason to move these pieces to the first section - they should be "global" to all my comments whereas my comment is local and one of many I may make.)
Comment by Bill — December 8, 2005 @ 2:30 pm
Thanks for the feedback Bill!
Comment by Dick — December 8, 2005 @ 2:38 pm
Rnazu,
Re: "That was good.
So if I had 2 women would they cancel each other out or would I have problems to the 4th and no money? or whaaa…"
No, no, no, silly. When you add women, you’re problems increase [i]more[/i] that expoentially. That’s basic math!
Also, if you insist on adding lots of women into your equation, there’s a basic premise that must be factored in:
W*N = 0 when N > 1
Comment by Brilliant Idiot — January 4, 2006 @ 11:43 am
1. to find a man you need big tits and a nice ass
therefore man=tits & ass
2. To get big tits and a nice ass you have to have money
therefore tits & ass = money
3. If money is the root of all problems
then money =…..
aw screw it - men are just asses….
Comment by Anon — February 15, 2006 @ 3:16 pm
cute … I think …
Comment by Dick — February 16, 2006 @ 12:16 am
Viz. some of Bill’s remarks about sxore, can I add something as a newbie that’s probably deeply unwelcome? When I scanned it, somewhat tired, it’s lexical significance in my mind somewhat overlapped with "sore" and, more grandly, "excoriate", both of which have rather negative connotations. Of course, if I was technically competent, I’m sure I would see it as terribly exciting, recognising some esoteric technological significance perhaps which would make me feel informed and clever…
Comment by John — March 2, 2006 @ 10:12 am
Not sure what your comment has to do with Harvard Math … but thanks for sharing your thoughts on the name of sxore.
Comment by Dick — March 2, 2006 @ 11:40 am
I’m really pleased I sent you this graphic, Dick. Excellent response !!!
Comment by JudyB — April 28, 2006 @ 3:40 pm
Probably one of the funniest things I have ever seen. This equation is very typical of every girl you’d meet in Yaletown! Great blog ..have had a couple good laughs.
Comment by KLN — June 2, 2006 @ 3:12 pm
Glad to hear you were entertained!
Comment by Dick — June 3, 2006 @ 9:00 am
The Root of Women’s Problems
MEN tal illness
MEN strual cramps
MEN tal breakdown
MEN opause
GUY necologist………………….
And when there is real trouble, it’s a
HIS terectomy.
Comment by Maryssa415 — September 19, 2006 @ 10:09 pm
LOL. I always thought men were the root of all evil.
Comment by Dick — September 20, 2006 @ 10:51 pm
If you are going to make a generalization I believe it would follow that, "To find women you need time and money"…and yes women equal problems where money and time generate exponetial creative solutions. The history of mankind.
Comment by Reee — October 1, 2006 @ 7:06 pm
To continue with the generalizations, I large amount of creative energy has gone into how men and women relate.!
Comment by Dick — October 1, 2006 @ 7:30 pm
Just checking if one such as yourself has found any formulas that do not equate to generalizations!
Comment by Marie — October 1, 2006 @ 8:00 pm
My experience is that all formulas are generalizations. Fortunately the world is full of exceptions to formulas!
Comment by Dick — October 2, 2006 @ 12:14 pm
I have heard this one before.
Comment by Andy X — October 10, 2006 @ 7:01 pm
thanks for letting us all know!
Comment by Dick — October 10, 2006 @ 7:54 pm
Tom send this formula (money = work / knowledge) and i would like to add some values he missed and to add some other things to his conclusion (Which explains that you can either work hard to be rich, or you can know very little.This is why we think our bosses are idiots, because incompetance rises to the top…)
(knowledge = (perception x inteligence) x time)
work = (knowledge x time)
Success = work x time x luck
Since you can buy success up to a point no luck is required if you add money. so…
You can also consider the value ‘’money’’ as help from others (relatives, a ‘’good’’ marriage etc.
Success = work x money
The higher the knowledge x time the lesser the money is needed.
The higher the amount of money the lesser the knowledge x time is needed.
So there are two basic formulas which explain why luck or money can change the result.
As a conclusion and result you can find many idiots as your superiors. People who had ‘’money’’ or luck.
Any additions and/or corrections would be welcome.
Comment by Broken — November 14, 2006 @ 4:58 am
An interesting analysis!
Of course this all depends on what we mean by "success"
I have found success = f (right work, right time)
Comment by Dick — November 14, 2006 @ 2:14 pm
interesting.
I’m from another university which would appreciate your analysis, but not exactly agree with it. We techies know better:
man needs sex.
to have sex, there is a need for man and woman. (I’m not talking about the other cases)
therefore, man needs woman.
now if woman = problems
then man needs problems
so there’s nothing to complain about
just thank God that you have woman in this world
cause if you didn’t, you wouldn’t have sex either
unless you’re …
i hope the point is clear.
Comment by oscarman — January 29, 2007 @ 4:56 pm
I think in the eqaution for woman is logic mistake.
I mean for a woman "To find a woman you need time and money" so this is AND an in math you use "+" for AND. It is Addiotion not Multiplication. So in my opinion it should be "woman = time + money"
But this assumption would make everything more complicated.
think of it!
Relationspips are not as easy as math or physics
Comment by OPX — March 28, 2007 @ 10:58 am
Ah, but if you double the time and money, you get four times the woman, so it does seem to be multiplication rather then addition. (the AND is listing the inputs to the formula
Comment by Dick — March 28, 2007 @ 11:21 am