Prove: If having 10,000 posts is lame, then Jay is probably lame even with only 9,999 posts and not 10,000.
Proof: Presume that having 10,000 posts is lame. Also presume that the degree of lameness is not instantaneous; that is, that for some subset of postcounts within [0, 10000), one is lame or at least has some degree of lameness. It is very justifiable that that every post increases the overall degree of lameness; in other words, if L(n) is the degree of lameness (where n is the postcount), then over the range [0, 10000],
L(n + 1) >= L(n)
for all n. Since empirically 1 post seems to have not much effect over how lame a person is, it could be said that
L(n + 1) >> L(n)
is false. Thus, L(n + 1) ~ L(n) and so clearly L(9999) ~ L(10000). Thus, Jay's degree of lameness is very close to being fully lame. As such, Jay it could be said that Jay is almost certainly lame; thus Jay is probably lame even with only 9,999 posts.
Corollary to Theorem: Jay should just post his 10,000th damn post and get the hell over it.
The proof of the corollary is left as an exercise to the reader.
[Ah, but you assume that lameness is proportional to the number of posts, n. But really, lameness could effected by x, the number of digits that make up one's post count. In this case, 4 verses 5. Lameness could be based on many factors. Also, you assume that lameness is linear, but you have nothing to base this on. Perhaps lameness is more exponential? Or some other function? Or perhaps lameness is instead based on the number of nerdy math proofs you use in every day life?
Your entire proof is based on assumptions. In order to come up with an accurate equation for lameness, you must first determine all of the variables that compose the lameness variable L, and then do some dimensional analysis on it.-jay]
"There are some who call me... Link?"
"Carpe Gaium Domesticum!" (Seize the Cucco!)
Zelda: The Grand Adventures | Triforce MUCK ザ行方不明リンク
悪いユウモアの賢人
[ February 21, 2005, 10:13 AM: Message edited by: Perrin Aybara ]