# Talk:Mathematics of Dating

So I've updated with the "second-stage" and completely unnecessary "third-stage" maths.

Strangely enough, the UK version of the dating-Drake Equation did not include a variable for "not currently in a relationship". Apparently either some math nerds are absent-minded, or else complete bastards when it comes to dating.

## Pre-2011 Stuff

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.*

- hmmm, the comic references marriage in the first panel as the original argument as to why the dating pool decreases. (the 'singles' graph in panel 3 is, I assume, age along x-axes, and percent-single along Y). The increasing size of the dating pool due to the creepiness pool rebuttal is ungraphed. It's the final combination of these two which is shown in the second graph of panel 3 - the dating pool size. So I'm unclear as to what you are seeking here. To recreate the results from the comic, but with actual factual data (tedious, but I'm sure ABS has what you need... or are you wanting to find new factors to integrate to the data as well? Nemo 14:54, 3 January 2008 (EST)

*Both.*