Slashdot Mirror
Scientists Define Murphy's Law
Jesrad writes "A mathematician, a psychologist and an economist commissioned by British Gas have finally put into mathematical terms what we all knew: that things don't just go wrong, they do so at the most annoying moment.The formula, ((U+C+I) x (10-S))/20 x A x 1/(1-sin(F/10)), indicates that to beat Murphy's Law (a.k.a. Sod's Law) you need to change one of the parameter: U for urgency, C for complexity, I for importance, S for skill, F for frequency and A for aggravation. Or in the researchers' own words: "If you haven't got the skill to do something important, leave it alone. If something is urgent or complex, find a simple way to do it. If something going wrong will particularly aggravate you, make certain you know how to do it." Don't you like it when maths back up common sense ?"
Women are evil.
Maths doesn't work like that. Writing something down as a formula doesn't automatically tell you something new or prove something.
It sounds like they're trying to describe how things can go wrong with a formula. That's nice, but it's just their opinion.
Jesrad writes "A mathematician, a psychologist and an economist commissioned by British Gas have finally put into mathematical terms what we all knew: that things don't just go wrong, they do so at the most anno.... 503 service unavailable
----
Quick, somebody start arguing about probability!
Better avoid a frequency of exactly 5*Pi.
"things don't just go wrong, they do so at the most annoying moment"
That's because, when things go wrong, it becomes the most annoying moment. My dishwaster just starting leaking all over the floor btw. Damn you murphy!
Bumper sticker for me!
((U+C+I) x (10-S))/20 x A x 1/(1-sin(F/10))
Yeah baby! Learn it, live it, love it!
Actually, this formula is my life story in a nutshell.....
Notice the foot? It's supposed to be a somewhat humorous little blurb about something silly.
What a fun crowd we've got around here on Sunday...
Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
Since, after all, they included a sin() call. As everyone knows, it's not real math unless it includes a trigonometric function. And lots of parens. Gotta have lots of those.
Shame they didn't work in some of those cool Greek characters, though.
And from today's joke at thehun.com (link not work safe!!) ...
From a strictly mathematical viewpoint it goes like this:
What makes 100%?
What does it mean to give MORE than 100%?
Ever wonder about these people who say they are giving more than 100%?
We have all been to these meetings where someone wants you to give over 100%
How about achieving 103%? What makes up 100% in life?
Here's a little mathematical formula that might help you answer these question.
If:
A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z is represented as:
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26.
Then:
H A R D W O R K
8+18+4+23+15+18+11 = 98%
K N O W L E D G E
11+14+15+23+12+5+4+7+5 = 96%
But:
A T T I T U D E
1+20+20++9+20+21+4+5 = 100%
And:
B U L L S H I T
2+21+12+12+19+8+9+20 = 103%
AND, Look how far ass kissing will take you.
A S S K I S S I N G
1+19+19+11+9+19+19+9+14+7 = 118%
So, one can conclude with mathematical certainty that whilst hard work and knowledge will get you close, and attitude will get you there, it's the bullshit and ass kissing that will put you over the top.
I'd say aggrivation could be measured in slashdots
If you can't see the value in jet powered ants you should turn in your nerd card. - Dunbal (464142)
I don't see how this particular formula is testable. How does one quantify urgency or aggravation in order to test the model? Methinks they left out the most important variable, B for Bullshit, measured in metric tons. ;)
When asked why so many of his psychotherapy patients commit suicide, Dr. Lewis went on to say, "You're implying something went wrong. They would have become serial murderers or child rapists if I handn't helped them. Are you saying I should be aggravated over the outcome of having saved lives while protecting little children from molestation? If I didn't have the skills I have, you might not be standing here asking such questions, you Wanker."
Seastead this.
Urgency and aggravation are measured on their own relative scale, as percentages of unity (0.0->1.0). Urgency is asymptotic to the deadline, and aggravation is a combinatoric of other factors, possibly even keyed to the multidimensional gravity vector of the iotas of info. Schneidics postulates that just as space = gravity = matter = energy, so does energy = info. We're all describing schneidodynamics, detailing mechanisms that can be engineered into applications. Current mathematical tools are mostly targeting applications in grant engineering.
--
make install -not war
It's not, it's not the same thing as Sod's Law, and the law you're thinking of is Finagle's.
Ironicly, having it called Murphy's Law by a reporter from the Courier-Mail is an example of Murphy's Law.
Murphy's Law: If it can go wrong it will
Sod's Law: It will go wrong at the worst posible time.
>> My friends love using quantifiers on values that can'be given a number:
>> "I have hundreds of luck. HUNDREDS!"
>I'm sorry, that's only three funny.
Apparently, so is your comment.
----------
(define (.sig) (cons 'my (list 'other 'car 'is 'a 'cdr)))
http://4horsemen.net
((U+C+I) x (10-S))/20 x A x 1/(1-sin(F/10))
The parent is noting that if you plug in 5*(pi) into F, you get sin(5*(pi)/10), which equals sin((pi)/2), which equals 1. The problem occurs when you evaluate this part: 1/(1-sin(F/10)), because you get 1/(1-1), which is 1/0, and division by 0 is prohibited.
Those axioms are observations. One important observation, one of two axioms underpinning all of math (and therefore science), is "consistency". The other is falsifiability, that only statements that can be proven false are scientific - the rest are metaphysical. Math such as "all triangles are composed of three interior angles totaling 180 degrees" is an observation, that is supported by theories and constructions. Physics applies math by interpreting the mathematical relationships in observed phenomena.
I suggest you go and read some Bertrand Russell on philisophy of mathematics. Mathematics isn't based on observation at all. It's based on what axioms you choose to start with and using deductive logic from there - and you would be very surprised about how basic and not based on observation the funcamental axioms of mathematics are, presuming you bother to look at works that build up math from as small a foundation as possible. On that front, I would suggest you look at Principia Mathematica by Russell and Whitehead, which is pretty much the book on purest mathematical foundations.
Jedidiah.
Craft Beer Programming T-shirts
For example, the exclamation point key will stop working on a keyboard: Murphy's Law.
/. and completely reverse the subject's meaning: Sod's Law.
It'll do it when typing a subject into
And yes, it really did stop working. Bugger.
It is a joke people. No need to question who did it or what school they went to or discuss the merits of trying to explain the nature of probability in a formula.
A FUCKING JOKE. If you need it simpler it is like the old "You can have it fast, good or cheap. Pick two" but with more braces.
Seriously read the comments. A lot just don't seem to get it at all. Those few who did. Thank god. All hope is not lost. To those who didn't go I recommend suicide. Make the world a happier place.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
No, those axioms are just the assumptions that a mathematician made. They don't have anything to do with reality, or the things we observe there. Every theorem has hypotheses and a conclusion; writing every one of those hypotheses every time you make a statement gets old, so you declare some things to be true before you get started.
The notion of consistency that troubles logicians is a matter of axioms -- it is merely a matter of whether there is a statement such that it and its negation follow from the axioms. Nothing to do with reality. As for "falsifiability", that has absolutely nothing to do with mathematics. Things are proven to be absolutely true in mathematics all the time.
No.
I feel I must repeat: No.
That the sum of the angles in a triangle is 180 degrees is a consequence of the axioms. It is most definitely not an observation, since it isn't actually true in the real world (though it is very close to what you might measure).
The statement about angles is a consequence of Euclidean geometry. Work in a different geometry (ie non-flat, like spherical or hyperbolic geometry) and the formula for the sum of the angles is very different.
Don't you like it when maths back up common sense ?
The equation in the post is a model---an invention for the purposes of prediction and description. It's effectively a mathematical restatement of common sense insights and (hopefully) statistical tendencies derived from psychological and economic studies. So to say that this work backs up common sense is missing the point to some extent: most of the meat was there first as common sense, and the math just expresses it more precisely and more in keeping with observed data.
Note that F=ma and the rest of Newton's laws also form a model in the same way that this equation does. What made them so revolutionary was that the ideas behind the models were very powerful, making the models themselves extremely accurate. We'll have to wait and see whether this Murphy's Law model is backed by similarly potent insights.
--Tom
MAN SHOOTS ROVER!
INTERESTING ADDENDUM FROM RBL (first featured in RBL's KISS Guide to
Windows, 1999): http://rblevin.net
It's ironic. One of the world's favorite axioms on the inevitability of
failure is itself an example of such inevitability. It's Murphy's Law, most
often stated as "anything that can go wrong, will." The irony: That's not
Murphy's Law at all. It's "Finagle's Law of Dynamic Negatives," devised by
the famous science fiction author Larry Niven. The real Murphy's Law was
coined sometime around 1949 by USAF engineer Edward A. Murphy Jr.
Murphy was part of a team of USAF engineers working on a project that tested
the effects of extreme G-forces on the human body. One such test involved
mounting 16 sensors to 16 different parts of the test subject's body. Each
sensor could be connected in one of two ways: Correctly or incorrectly. On
the first run, a technician installed all 16 sensors backwards, after which
Murphy issued his now-famous maxim: "If there are two or more ways to do
something, and one of those ways can result in a catastrophe, then someone
will do it." Someone did, and now Finagle's Law is almost always misrepresented as Murphy's.
For those that didn't RTFM, the value for each variable should be on a scale of 1-9, with 9 being very high. A (aggrivation) should be 0.7 as set after the study. I put together something in PHP just to do the work for me. The biggest variable seems to be skill--with all others set to very high (9) it certainly "proves" that an idiot can totally screw stuff up.
Sometimes I doubt your commitment to Sparkle Motion.
How does one quantify urgency
Fraction of bladder. 0 = bladder empty, no urgency. 1 = bladder full. Hoo boy, that's urgent.
The hermetic nature of basic math is from a limitation of mathematicians, us, rather than math itself.
You've got it backwards. This joke doesn't illustrate a weakness of mathematical thinking, it illustrates a key strength. Mathematics is all about precise, rigorous reasoning, and that's what makes it both useful and beautiful. Fuzzy thinking that makes unnecessary assumptions limits the thought processes and closes off interesting lines of investigation. What if the the sheep *was* black only on one side? What might that imply? Or is it possible to demonstrate that a sheep that is black on one side must therefore be entirely black? Avoiding assumptions is a good thing, a way to free your mind, not to limit it. Even better is to go ahead and make assumptions, with the clear understanding of what you are assuming and see where it leads. You can even make assumptions that are counter to observed facts and see where that goes (e.g. non-Euclidean geometry -- which turns out to be highly useful in the real world -- was created in the midst of an attempt to demonstrate that Euclid's parallel postulate must be "true" because to assume otherwise leads to contradictions -- only it doesn't).
I'm a mathematician* and I think that joke spreads a valuable and important meme. Don't counter it, clarify it.
*Speaking of precision: Perhaps I shouldn't call myself a mathematician. I have a BS in Mathematics (pure, not applied or any somesuch) which doesn't so much make me a mathematician as someone who once wanted to be a mathematician. I still occasionally study a little math for fun.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.