It's 4%, AKA the Go Fuck Yourself Post.

[Crazy Diana]

roj if lorakes doing it wrong maybe you should do it right then we can have a math hoedown

[ArchmageFurly in three days]

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?

Explain to me why your equation is linear. You don't even know what that means do you?

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.

[Roj]

LOL Furly, you're silly.

[Lorake]

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?

Explain to me why your equation is linear. You don't even know what that means do you?

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.

[Lorake]

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?

Explain to me why your equation is linear. You don't even know what that means do you?

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.

[Roj]

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.

[geng]

ITT NERDS

[Aseic]

is no one going to answer me? this is a matter of life and death

[Roj]

is no one going to answer me? this is a matter of life and death

Uh where are you...?

[Sharfalma]

is no one going to answer me? this is a matter of life and death

The jury is still out whether or not 1+1 does, in fact, equal 2. I'll let you know asap ok?