Ah, here it is:
Mind you, if we're true to the real spirit of Murphy's Law, there's undoubtedly something wrong with this equation as well. For an explanation, check out here at the SCQ.
- Log in to post comments
More like this
Part two of our crackpot's babblings are actually more interesting in their way, because they touch on a fascinating mathematical issue, which, unfortunately, Mr. Brookfield is compeletely unable to understand: the Poincare recurrence theorem.
Brookfield argues that the second law of…
I know better than to attempt to write an april fools day post that really
tries to fool anyone. I'm not a good enough writer to carry that kind of thing off
in a genuinely amusing way. On the other hand, I love april fools day pranks, and
I generally like the silly mood of the day. So I thought…
Over at Unqualified Offerings, Thoreau proposes an an experimental test of Murphy's Law using the lottery. While amusing, it's ultimately flawed-- Murphy's Law is something of the form:
Anything that can go wrong, will.
Accordingly, it can only properly be applied to situations in which there is a…
I'm going to intermittently keep track of the comments I make on other blogs. I'll spare you the totally trivial ones, but I don't guarantee this to be especially interesting. One point of doing this will be to track the ones that "disappear" on various sites (no names for now) that I've found don'…
It would have been funnier if I, C, U, F, and Fm had reasonable sounding values. Importance on a scale of 10 sounds dopey on its face, just like 'on a scale of 1 to 10' never gives the kind of scale, the expected distribution, and so on.
If I, C, and U were bounded by the interval [0,1] then it would be easier to pitch this to suits.
There needs to be some revision to make sure that the exponent is a dimensionless group.
But I did like the old joke about the 386 computer.