Talk:Mathematics of Dating
(→sidetracked?) |
(→sidetracked?) |
||
| Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
::Actually, not quite... you talk of the prospective pool increasing due to the 'not creepy' rule (a very boring graph by the way), and then tangent into 'variables involving cultural factors'. The xkcd version tangents towards the more measurable (but arguably less important) factors of marriage and divorce rates. [[User:Nemo|Nemo]] 15:25, 31 December 2007 (EST) |
::Actually, not quite... you talk of the prospective pool increasing due to the 'not creepy' rule (a very boring graph by the way), and then tangent into 'variables involving cultural factors'. The xkcd version tangents towards the more measurable (but arguably less important) factors of marriage and divorce rates. [[User:Nemo|Nemo]] 15:25, 31 December 2007 (EST) |
||
| − | ''The "Standard Creepiness Rule" is a direct quote from that link; I can't actually find any marriage or divorce rate references in that specific comic, just the oblique assertion (sans mathematical working) of the decreasing number of singles being counteracted by the dating pool increase. It's a boolean single/not single factor as far as is explained, there are no actual references to specific cultural factors that cause such a situation or how these factors relate to each other. Not that I wouldn't mind taking that up, my point is that currently I have no source material to work on for going that next step, which is why I asked.'' |
+ | ''The "Standard Creepiness Rule" is a direct quote from that link; I can't actually find any marriage or divorce rate references in that specific comic, just the oblique assertion (sans mathematical working) of the decreasing number of singles being counteracted by the dating pool increase. It's a boolean single/not single factor as far as is explained, there are no actual references to specific cultural factors that cause such a situation or how these factors relate to each other. Not that I wouldn't mind taking that up, my point is that currently I have no source material to work on for going that next step, which is why I asked in the first place. Assertions that such is the case are all well and good, but without any mathematical data/calculations to work with I'm stuck with the article being as is currently.'' |
Revision as of 13:45, 3 January 2008
Need help with second-stage dating math.
Specifically, measuring influence of environmental factors, how said factors balance how to manipulate said factors, etc.
sidetracked?
there is of course also the relevant xkcd comic reference... http://xkcd.com/314/
Well yeah, but that's already in this article
- Actually, not quite... you talk of the prospective pool increasing due to the 'not creepy' rule (a very boring graph by the way), and then tangent into 'variables involving cultural factors'. The xkcd version tangents towards the more measurable (but arguably less important) factors of marriage and divorce rates. Nemo 15:25, 31 December 2007 (EST)
The "Standard Creepiness Rule" is a direct quote from that link; I can't actually find any marriage or divorce rate references in that specific comic, just the oblique assertion (sans mathematical working) of the decreasing number of singles being counteracted by the dating pool increase. It's a boolean single/not single factor as far as is explained, there are no actual references to specific cultural factors that cause such a situation or how these factors relate to each other. Not that I wouldn't mind taking that up, my point is that currently I have no source material to work on for going that next step, which is why I asked in the first place. Assertions that such is the case are all well and good, but without any mathematical data/calculations to work with I'm stuck with the article being as is currently.
