My Lemmy Oracle
  • Communities
  • Create Post
  • heart
    Support Lemmy
  • search
    Search
  • Login
  • Sign Up
Sjmarf@sh.itjust.works to memes@lemmy.world · 1 year ago

Mafs

sh.itjust.works

message-square
83
fedilink
1.2K

Mafs

sh.itjust.works

Sjmarf@sh.itjust.works to memes@lemmy.world · 1 year ago
message-square
83
fedilink
alert-triangle
You must log in or register to comment.
  • brophy@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    117
    ·
    1 year ago

    Extrapolating!

    • wischi@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      19
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Original post is not linearly interpolating but exponentially.

      • Localhorst86@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        28
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        this comic uses a log scale (I extrapolate this from the only two data points given).

        • NeatNit@discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          (apologies for pedantry) This can’t be the case, as the zero point is visible in the graph and even gets crossed to the negatives. Log scale graphs only show positive values and place zero infinitely below the horizontal axis.

        • threelonmusketeers@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          If that were the case, the y-axis label would be log(NUMBER OF HUSBANDS), no?

          • oce 🐆@jlai.lu
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            1 year ago

            It’s a choice, it’s not mandatory to use a log on your y axis when you plot a log.

        • wischi@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Nice. Haven’t thought about that 🤣

    • agent_flounder@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

      New data point in 3…2…

  • Aceticon@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    70
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    Neatly showing why when all you have is two data points you can’t just assume the best fit function for extrapolation is a linear one.

    Mind you, a surprisingly large number of political comments is anchored in exactly that logic.

    • wischi@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      46
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Doubling every three months is an exponential interpolation and not a linear one!

      • Aceticon@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        19
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Good point and well spotted!

        PS: Though it’s not actually called exponential (as it isn’t enr-3-month-periods but rather 2nr-3-month-periods ) but has a different name which I can’t recall anymore.

        PPS: Found it - it’s a “geometric progression”.

        • wischi@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          15
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          By tweaking a few parameters you can turn every base into any other base for exponentials. Just use e^(ln(b)*x)

          PS: The formula here would be e^(ln(2)/3*X) and x is the number of months. So the behavior it’s exponential in nature.

          • Aceticon@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            By that definition you can turn any linear function a * x + b, “exponential” by making it e^ln(a*x +b) even though it’s actually linear (you can do it to anything, including sin() or even ln() itself, which would make per that definition the inverse of exponential “exponential”).

            Essentially you’re just doing f(f-1(g(x))) and then saying “f(m) is em so if I make m = ln(g(x)) then g(x) is exponential”

            Also the correct formula in your example would be e^(ln(2)*X/3) since the original formula if X denotes months is 2X/3

            • wischi@programming.dev
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              It doesn’t matter if you divide ln(2) or x by three, it’s the same thing.

              • Beldarofremulak@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                Get a room you two

        • some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          PPS: Found it - it’s a “geometric progression”.

          A terminology that I learned from the Terminator 2 movie. Only that was, I think, a “geometric rate”.

          • Telodzrum@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Chessboard and wheat

            • Aceticon@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              One of the best mathematical stories from ancient times, IMHO,

    • catch22@startrek.website
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      1 year ago

      It’s cold today, so much for climate change 🧐

      • body_by_make@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        Close, if you’d instead called it global warming I’d have bought it

      • NeatNit@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Dammit, we’re on a cooling trajectory, prepare for a new ice age and the approach to absolute zero by end of year

  • Goun@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    43
    ·
    1 year ago

    Huge if true!

  • chetradley@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    32
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    If you’ve ever seen a growth chart, you know that newborns grow incredibly quickly, but the rate of growth tapers off over time. That being said, my daughter will be six feet tall by the time she’s 2:

  • Rambomst@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    22
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    It looks like he aged 5 years in 3 months…

    • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      24
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Someone’s clearly not a parent.

      • WhiskyTangoFoxtrot@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        17
        ·
        1 year ago

        Oh oh, don’t tell me, I’ll guess! It’s the baby, right? The baby’s not a parent?

      • Rambomst@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        16
        ·
        1 year ago

        You are correct

        • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          12
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Babies grow super fast.

          • Rambomst@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            20
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            I was talking about the dad, lol.

            I should have been more specific given they are both male.

            • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              15
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              Oh, yeah. That makes a lot more sense! And that’s what being kept up every night for months will do to you.

            • dingus@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              To be fair, the lighting conditions are way more flattering in the first pic. When you have even lighting all over your front, it minimizes wrinkles. The second pic seems like it was taken in the evening with only one light source (or a few…but it seems like maybe an overhead porch light), making wrinkles and such far more prominent.

            • agent_flounder@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              As a parent with a kid who didn’t sleep well I knew what you meant lol

    • Vash63@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      1 year ago

      As a father I can confirm this seems right

  • some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    20
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Why is the wreath still there?

    • WhatAmLemmy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      28
      ·
      1 year ago

      3 months of chronic sleep deprivation

      • Kit Sorens@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        How’re the kids?

  • therealjcdenton@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Do we tell him?

    • WarmSoda@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      1 year ago

      It’s not his?

      • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        That’s Maury’s job, not ours.

    • FrostyCaveman@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      That it’s not Christmas anymore?

  • Annoyed_🦀 @monyet.cc
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    1 year ago

    His son’s face looks like that’s not the first time dad tell that joke.

    “i’ve heard that before, dad.”

    • agent_flounder@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      3 month milestone: baby is so over it

  • Buddahriffic@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    1 year ago

    There’s another problem that his math missed. His baby-making rate stands at one per three months. Extrapolating that for all humans puts the population’s doubling rate at EVERY THREE MONTHS! In 10 years, there will be a lot of ~3 trillion kg kids!

    If every 10 billion people can make a new earth every year, I think we should be able to get on top of this.

  • This is fine🔥🐶☕🔥@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    1 year ago

    Line goes up. Can’t refute that!

  • dejected_warp_core@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    1 year ago

    Plot twist: the bio-dad is actually either Galactus or Ego.

  • Guntrigger@feddit.ch
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    7.5 trillion pound coins is a lot, I wonder how much they weigh.

  • Gorely@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    Math checks out.

  • AgentGrimstone@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    TWICE!

  • Boomer Humor Doomergod@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Mafs by mafks

memes@lemmy.world

memes@lemmy.world

Subscribe from Remote Instance

Create a post
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: [email protected]

Community rules

1. Be civil

No trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour

2. No politics

This is non-politics community. For political memes please go to [email protected]

3. No recent reposts

Check for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month

4. No bots

No bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins

5. No Spam/Ads

No advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live.

A collection of some classic Lemmy memes for your enjoyment

Sister communities

  • [email protected] : Star Trek memes, chat and shitposts
  • [email protected] : Lemmy Shitposts, anything and everything goes.
  • [email protected] : Linux themed memes
  • [email protected] : for those who love comic stories.
Visibility: Public
globe

This community can be federated to other instances and be posted/commented in by their users.

  • 3.9K users / day
  • 9.06K users / week
  • 15.2K users / month
  • 28.7K users / 6 months
  • 1 local subscriber
  • 14.7K subscribers
  • 5.67K Posts
  • 163K Comments
  • Modlog
  • mods:
  • Tenthrow@lemmy.world
  • The Picard Maneuver@lemmy.world
  • The Picard Maneuver@startrek.website
  • BE: 0.19.5
  • Modlog
  • Instances
  • Docs
  • Code
  • join-lemmy.org