Ben Maths

JD asked on Msn why I approve of his young lady friend, I opened my mouth and the words come out like this...

right

this is ben's perception of people


except that it's inverted


so y decreases as x reaches zero (without reaching zero)

now

left of the y axis, x shows wierdness, with x-1 being liberal democrats and x-5 being americans and x-10 being people who dress up as celtic warriors and enact ancient battles on Sunday afternoon

right of the y axis is normalditude (pronounced nor-MAL-di-chood), with x+1 being grown ups and x+5 being textbooks on maths and x+10 being the business man sort that walks briskly around Whitehall and Westminster carrying a black briefcase wearing a bowler hat and generally not having a life

y denotes people density per thousand

understand?

now here's where it gets complicated

x is directly proportional to seriousness and y is directly proportional to age (ie, there are more extremely serious grown ups and extremely irritating grownups than normal aged normal people)

that leaves a very narrow quartile that's eligable to date and socialise with as their normalditude quotiant has to tent towards zero which means the sect of society that qualifies becomes smaller

however

the Foster Anomylie (paper that I published last month) suggests that an individual with a normalditude quotiant that is exactly zero is neitehr quirky OR serious and THEREFORE has NO personality. (another of my theories includes a z axis which suggests personality but the function for calculating this is far too complicated to include, however I shall reference this in the appendix)
JD says:
(ill leave oyou to explain while i pay attention to my darling)

if we call vicky v then using epistemological logic we can postulate that,

v = doesn't poke JD's LCD screen through skype :. f(v) < 0
But
v = taking `it slowly` with JD in a sensible way :. f(v) > 0

Summing these two parenthesis, we encounter the Foster Anymlie which suggests that Vicky has no personality and is therefore not acceptible to JDness.


however if we factor in that

f(jd) + f(v) >> f(jd + v)


we can clearly see that the relationship between JD and V is more than the sum of its parts.

This has caused headaches for lovematicians all over the globe and the conclusion is that there is a form of maths called `love`, now if we apply the love function to the above relationship, the following expression is derived:

l(v) + l(jd) = *cartoon heart*

Now what's interesting about the love function is that it only works when there is a special spark or common denominator between the two variables. Some people theorise that the love function only works when the two variables have a similar normalditude quotiant, but the important thing is the variables BOTH have to be very special indeed to produce the result of *cartoon heart*

We know from experiance that the variable JD is very special which must infer that v is also very special indeed to produce *cartoon heart*

the conclusion of this is that we like vicky as she is special.


(Can we still be friends please?)