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.
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!
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.
>> 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.
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.
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.