posted by ![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
elanya at 07:00pm on 12/05/2004
elanya at 07:00pm on 12/05/2004Stolen from some guy on IRC...
In one Nine Inch Nails song, Trent Reznor professes to his love that "if I were twice the man I could be, I'd still be half the man you need." Assuming that Trent is currently 1/3 the man he could be, what fraction is he of the man she needs?
In one Nine Inch Nails song, Trent Reznor professes to his love that "if I were twice the man I could be, I'd still be half the man you need." Assuming that Trent is currently 1/3 the man he could be, what fraction is he of the man she needs?
amused
(no subject)
Perhaps a more amusing NIN related math and measurement story...
There was a rumor at one point that Trent Reznor was involved with Courney Love (blech). When asked about this, Ms. Love commented: "Nine Inches? More like three."
A friend of Trent reportedly retorted "Three feet maybe."
Wow.
(no subject)
And that's not much of a man at all, is it?
=)
(no subject)
I suggest beer.
(no subject)
(no subject)
then r = 1/4m,
then 1/3r = 1/(3*4)m = 1/12m.
Thus, If Reznor were one-third of the man he could be, he would only be one-twelth of the man she needs.
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
If 2r = 1/2m,
then r = 1/4m,
This is fine. (Allow me to name the variables, for clarity. Thus, 'r' is "the man he could be" and 'm' is "the man she needs".)
then 1/3r = 1/(3*4)m = 1/12m.
This is wrong, because you took 1/3 of r instead of replacing r in the original equation! By doing so you make Two Inch Trent exactly 1/(2*3) = 1/6 the man he could be, which contradicts the statement that he "is currently 1/3 the man he could be". The only logical recourse is to either convert by ratio (my original method, chosen since it was more convoluted) or just resolve the equation with the new coefficent: 3 r = 1/2 m.
Proof by contradiction! Who knew it would prove so useful? *ahem* ;-)
(no subject)
If I were twice the man I could be
Nowhere in this line is it specified how much of the man he could be he actually is at the moment. Therefore the value of 1/3 does not replace any existing value in the equation; it is a new value.
So, r is the man he could be. m is the man she needs.
if I were twice the man I could be, I'd still be half the man you need
2r = 1/2m, therefore 4r = m
Assuming that Trent is currently 1/3 the man he could be
t = trent
t = 1/3r, therefore 3t = r
Substituting t into 4r = m gives us
4(3t) = m, therefore 12t = m, therefore t = 1/12m
(no subject)
A more interesting problem is in an application of either of these two values (1/6 or 1/12). Assuming she needs a 12" man, then Trent has either 2" or 1", depending. I conjecture that, since Two Inch Trent has a "better ring to it" than One Inch Trent, the former is obviously true, which means that my (absolutist) position is clearly superior.
And we all know Trent is a tit, so it works out beautifully.
Suck on that, you gothy music-listening types!
=D
(no subject)
Anyway, all I did was multiply both sides by 1/3 and then followed through with the correct algebra. There's nothing wrong in that approach, because (and here's the algebraic assumption that I left implicit, because Lannie had stated it at the beginning):
trent = t = 1/3r
As I showed earlier: 1/3r = 1/12m
Thus: t = 1/12m
Thus: trent is 1/12 of the man she needs.
Voila.
(no subject)