+- (https://wuthapn.com/forums)
+-- Forum: WHAR LEWTS PLZ HALp (https://wuthapn.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Forum: GINERAL FORUM (https://wuthapn.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=4)
+--- Thread: It's 4%, AKA the Go Fuck Yourself Post. (/showthread.php?tid=1373)
Re: It's 4%, AKA the Go Fuck Yourself Post. - Crazy Diana - 10-19-2009
roj if lorakes doing it wrong maybe you should do it right then we can have a math hoedown
Re: It's 4%, AKA the Go Fuck Yourself Post. - ArchmageFurly in three days - 10-19-2009
Roj Wrote:Lorake Wrote:Explain to me why your equation is linear. You don't even know what that means do you?Roj Wrote:We both know you're full of shit. That does not make sense. You copy/pasted a linear equation when you should have googled an exponential equation. Think about it. Give it up already, you fail.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_equation
If X and Y confuse the shit out of you, I can just use (X1) and (X2) notation for variables. Sorry I come from a level of math where you can have a ton of variables and you describe functions of variables as F(variables).
Wonder how long it took you to look up linear and exponential equations. Did you Wiki a strat?
There's a miscommunication here. Lorake used an equation that would have to be graphed using non-Euclidean Geometry, which is where the confusion between linear and exponential equations is coming. In truth for the reality of the situation that you're applying the math to, Lorake's equation means very little, becasue it arose from the question as to what the chance was that Anub followed someone twice in a row, and Lorake's equation takes it beyond that scenario, which is unneccessary becasue if Anub follows someone twice in a row you're fucked anyways, so there's no need to take it further.
Re: It's 4%, AKA the Go Fuck Yourself Post. - Roj - 10-19-2009
LOL Furly, you're silly.
Re: It's 4%, AKA the Go Fuck Yourself Post. - Lorake - 10-19-2009
Roj Wrote:Lorake Wrote:Explain to me why your equation is linear. You don't even know what that means do you?Roj Wrote:We both know you're full of shit. That does not make sense. You copy/pasted a linear equation when you should have googled an exponential equation. Think about it. Give it up already, you fail.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_equation
If X and Y confuse the shit out of you, I can just use (X1) and (X2) notation for variables. Sorry I come from a level of math where you can have a ton of variables and you describe functions of variables as F(variables).
Wonder how long it took you to look up linear and exponential equations. Did you Wiki a strat?
You're the one saying it's linear in the first place, when it isn't. LOLUMAD YOU WRONG. If it weren't for the fact that the function is a function of itself you'd be getting somewhere.
Re: It's 4%, AKA the Go Fuck Yourself Post. - Lorake - 10-19-2009
ArchmageFurly Wrote:Roj Wrote:Lorake Wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_equationExplain to me why your equation is linear. You don't even know what that means do you?
If X and Y confuse the shit out of you, I can just use (X1) and (X2) notation for variables. Sorry I come from a level of math where you can have a ton of variables and you describe functions of variables as F(variables).
Wonder how long it took you to look up linear and exponential equations. Did you Wiki a strat?
There's a miscommunication here. Lorake used an equation that would have to be graphed using non-Euclidean Geometry, which is where the confusion between linear and exponential equations is coming. In truth for the reality of the situation that you're applying the math to, Lorake's equation means very little, becasue it arose from the question as to what the chance was that Anub followed someone twice in a row, and Lorake's equation takes it beyond that scenario, which is unneccessary becasue if Anub follows someone twice in a row you're fucked anyways, so there's no need to take it further.
Furly has my back. You autolose because it's Furly.
Re: It's 4%, AKA the Go Fuck Yourself Post. - Roj - 10-19-2009
Lorake Wrote:You're the one saying it's linear in the first place, when it isn't. LOLUMAD YOU WRONG. If it weren't for the fact that the function is a function of itself you'd be getting somewhere.ROFL so it's not linear? It looks like it should be a function of a function, but it's not. Show me the first 5 points in your function. Guarantee you'll make some lame ass excuse and won't do it.
Re: It's 4%, AKA the Go Fuck Yourself Post. - geng - 10-19-2009
ITT NERDS
Re: It's 4%, AKA the Go Fuck Yourself Post. - Aseic - 10-19-2009
is no one going to answer me? this is a matter of life and death
Re: It's 4%, AKA the Go Fuck Yourself Post. - Roj - 10-19-2009
Aseic Wrote:is no one going to answer me? this is a matter of life and deathUh where are you...?
Re: It's 4%, AKA the Go Fuck Yourself Post. - Sharfalma - 10-19-2009
Aseic Wrote:is no one going to answer me? this is a matter of life and deathThe jury is still out whether or not 1+1 does, in fact, equal 2. I'll let you know asap ok?