What's your equation?
October 19, 2007 8:10 AM Subscribe
What's your equation? (via)
A collaboration between edge.org and the Serpentine Gallery: scroll down for the complete list of exhibits.
A collaboration between edge.org and the Serpentine Gallery: scroll down for the complete list of exhibits.
Mandelbrot wins.
posted by grouse at 8:22 AM on October 19, 2007 [1 favorite]
posted by grouse at 8:22 AM on October 19, 2007 [1 favorite]
Navier-Stokes. I live, breath, eat and sleep with him in mind.
It is not complicated, you don't say. Every single term anyone can name just through reasoning. It's a wordy way to express F=m.a.
posted by carmina at 8:37 AM on October 19, 2007
It is not complicated, you don't say. Every single term anyone can name just through reasoning. It's a wordy way to express F=m.a.
posted by carmina at 8:37 AM on October 19, 2007
My favorite equation is this one, but then this also has a lot of relevance.
posted by Wolfdog at 8:42 AM on October 19, 2007
posted by Wolfdog at 8:42 AM on October 19, 2007
I live and die by:
Risk = exposure . effect
seemingly simple, so hard to measure.
posted by bonehead at 8:43 AM on October 19, 2007
Risk = exposure . effect
seemingly simple, so hard to measure.
posted by bonehead at 8:43 AM on October 19, 2007
Kahneman's is first-rate, so I'll quote it here:
SUCCESS = SOME TALENT + LUCK
GREAT SUCCESS = SOME TALENT + A LOT OF LUCK
posted by escabeche at 8:52 AM on October 19, 2007
SUCCESS = SOME TALENT + LUCK
GREAT SUCCESS = SOME TALENT + A LOT OF LUCK
posted by escabeche at 8:52 AM on October 19, 2007
I thought this was going to be one of those quizzes, like "Which Monkee Are You?"
It's cool anyway.
posted by jquinby at 8:58 AM on October 19, 2007
It's cool anyway.
posted by jquinby at 8:58 AM on October 19, 2007
C6H1206 --> 2CH3CH2OH + 2CO2
seeing as how it is Friday and all
posted by caddis at 8:59 AM on October 19, 2007
seeing as how it is Friday and all
posted by caddis at 8:59 AM on October 19, 2007
Dean Kamen doesn't know the difference between "0" and the empty set symbol! Ha ha, pwned!
Most of the social science examples seem to express interesting ideas which would be better expressed without the use of an "equation." One exception is the compelling Teacher's Dilemma from Jordan Pollock. If I must nitpick, it is actually an inequality, not an equation.
posted by escabeche at 9:07 AM on October 19, 2007
Most of the social science examples seem to express interesting ideas which would be better expressed without the use of an "equation." One exception is the compelling Teacher's Dilemma from Jordan Pollock. If I must nitpick, it is actually an inequality, not an equation.
posted by escabeche at 9:07 AM on October 19, 2007
Wow, Kamen's is garbage in three different ways. That's impressive.
posted by gleuschk at 9:15 AM on October 19, 2007
posted by gleuschk at 9:15 AM on October 19, 2007
This is great. Thanks, bonehead. My favorites:
Ernst Pöppel
Geoffrey Miller
Alexander Vilenkin
David Gelernter
Matt Ridley
William Poundstone
David Deutsch
Einstein's first theory.
posted by weapons-grade pandemonium at 9:16 AM on October 19, 2007
Ernst Pöppel
Geoffrey Miller
Alexander Vilenkin
David Gelernter
Matt Ridley
William Poundstone
David Deutsch
Einstein's first theory.
posted by weapons-grade pandemonium at 9:16 AM on October 19, 2007
Good call caddis. There's never enough chemistry (geology, biochemistry, etc...) in Edge things.
posted by bonehead at 9:19 AM on October 19, 2007
posted by bonehead at 9:19 AM on October 19, 2007
I liked Dawkin's, though I think he's overstating how awesome Darwin is if you compare to Newton. What is billions of species on a single (so far) planet vs gazillions of particles (and gazillionplexes of combinations of those particles) throughout the universe?
posted by DU at 9:25 AM on October 19, 2007
posted by DU at 9:25 AM on October 19, 2007
"I may be a sorry case, but I don't write jokes in base 13."
posted by not_on_display at 9:27 AM on October 19, 2007
posted by not_on_display at 9:27 AM on October 19, 2007
What's your equation?
E=mc2 . Except that in my equation, c is not a constant, it's the transformational limits of the system. As derived from the Lorentz Transformation, it still limits velocity v as v approaches c, but since this is true for any value of c, by refusing to beg the question of c's value, the equation can be used to express the transformational energies of any discrete system without pretense as to whether the energies involved represent an absolute universal limit. The limit applies only within the internal constraints of the defined system.
Or maybe, E=mc2 isn't an equation at all. Maybe it's better described as the integral of m(ƒ(c))ndc from 0 to c with respect to c, where the solution (E) is the potential available energy of a system in which units of energy (m) can be delivered at a maximum rate of c. Hence, Special Relativity is true for c=300,000 km/hr (electromagnetic systems), but is not universally constrained by it. With c not defined as a universal constant, but instead, merely the common limit to all of the reference points within a given transformation set, the integral can be used to calculate energies in systems of lesser energy – flow rates, for example – or in systems of higher energies, should such systems be discovered at some point in the future (the speed at which new memes become intolerable suggests itself).
Hence, my version of E=mc2 is superior by three distinct measures:
1) The cosmic speed limit is not constrained by the speed of light, but rather by the limits of the system of delivery.
2) E=mc2 can be used to describe the maximum potential energy of my piss stream after a bender, where m is the weight by volume of the post-processed lubricants and where c is the maximum throughput as determined by such factors as maximum velocity before excess pressure causes system failure and nozzle diameter.
3) My system allows me to apply the variable of "nozzle diameter."
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 9:30 AM on October 19, 2007 [2 favorites]
E=mc2 . Except that in my equation, c is not a constant, it's the transformational limits of the system. As derived from the Lorentz Transformation, it still limits velocity v as v approaches c, but since this is true for any value of c, by refusing to beg the question of c's value, the equation can be used to express the transformational energies of any discrete system without pretense as to whether the energies involved represent an absolute universal limit. The limit applies only within the internal constraints of the defined system.
Or maybe, E=mc2 isn't an equation at all. Maybe it's better described as the integral of m(ƒ(c))ndc from 0 to c with respect to c, where the solution (E) is the potential available energy of a system in which units of energy (m) can be delivered at a maximum rate of c. Hence, Special Relativity is true for c=300,000 km/hr (electromagnetic systems), but is not universally constrained by it. With c not defined as a universal constant, but instead, merely the common limit to all of the reference points within a given transformation set, the integral can be used to calculate energies in systems of lesser energy – flow rates, for example – or in systems of higher energies, should such systems be discovered at some point in the future (the speed at which new memes become intolerable suggests itself).
Hence, my version of E=mc2 is superior by three distinct measures:
1) The cosmic speed limit is not constrained by the speed of light, but rather by the limits of the system of delivery.
2) E=mc2 can be used to describe the maximum potential energy of my piss stream after a bender, where m is the weight by volume of the post-processed lubricants and where c is the maximum throughput as determined by such factors as maximum velocity before excess pressure causes system failure and nozzle diameter.
3) My system allows me to apply the variable of "nozzle diameter."
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 9:30 AM on October 19, 2007 [2 favorites]
I look forward to witty one-liners from Florence. What just happened here?
posted by itchylick at 9:36 AM on October 19, 2007
posted by itchylick at 9:36 AM on October 19, 2007
it would be either e to the i x pi plus 1 = 0, or, for something more understandable, quality of life = available resources/number of people competing for them.
posted by bruce at 9:37 AM on October 19, 2007
posted by bruce at 9:37 AM on October 19, 2007
For the probability P of a hypothesis H conditional on a given body of data E:
P(H|E) = [P(H)/P(E)] P(E|H)
Bayes' Theorem: learn it, live it, love it. It's the basis of all knowledge.
posted by Bletch at 9:38 AM on October 19, 2007 [4 favorites]
P(H|E) = [P(H)/P(E)] P(E|H)
Bayes' Theorem: learn it, live it, love it. It's the basis of all knowledge.
posted by Bletch at 9:38 AM on October 19, 2007 [4 favorites]
I've always enjoyed the simplicity, quirkiness, and relative obscurity of Hero's formula for calculating the area of a triangle. I know there are flashier equations out there, but I've always really liked this one.
posted by SBMike at 9:42 AM on October 19, 2007 [2 favorites]
posted by SBMike at 9:42 AM on October 19, 2007 [2 favorites]
wolfdog, I silently and sadly concur wrt your second formula. The first one is very pretty too.
caddis' equation made me hungry.
itchylick, there are many witty one-liners in that comment, though. Be happy.
posted by carmina at 9:52 AM on October 19, 2007
caddis' equation made me hungry.
itchylick, there are many witty one-liners in that comment, though. Be happy.
posted by carmina at 9:52 AM on October 19, 2007
I also like the Heron formula, SBMike. Do you know Pick's theorem for lattice polygons? The Surveyor's Area Formula is also quite a beauty.
posted by Wolfdog at 9:53 AM on October 19, 2007
posted by Wolfdog at 9:53 AM on October 19, 2007
I look forward to witty one-liners from Florence. What just happened here?
Thanks, itchylick. The likelihood that Florence will make a witty one-liner is inversely proportional to his ignorance of the subject at hand. The less I know, the more likely I am to expound.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 10:04 AM on October 19, 2007
Thanks, itchylick. The likelihood that Florence will make a witty one-liner is inversely proportional to his ignorance of the subject at hand. The less I know, the more likely I am to expound.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 10:04 AM on October 19, 2007
I have a really cool equation which this text input area is too narrow to contain.
posted by kurumi at 10:24 AM on October 19, 2007 [2 favorites]
posted by kurumi at 10:24 AM on October 19, 2007 [2 favorites]
Thanks, Wolfdog. Latex is fun!
Here's a limerick. (translation)
posted by MtDewd at 10:47 AM on October 19, 2007
Here's a limerick. (translation)
posted by MtDewd at 10:47 AM on October 19, 2007
Incredible find, thanks Bonehead.
posted by krakedhalo at 10:51 AM on October 19, 2007
posted by krakedhalo at 10:51 AM on October 19, 2007
I look forward to witty one-liners from Florence. What just happened here?
SCIENCE!
posted by oneirodynia at 11:01 AM on October 19, 2007
SCIENCE!
posted by oneirodynia at 11:01 AM on October 19, 2007
Way cool post!
Didn't expect it to be so interesting as I'm math challenged. After seeing what formula meant to different people it reminds me of the conceptual fun of Indexed with math added sometimes. Have to dash but looking forward to having a closer look when I get home.
posted by nickyskye at 12:03 PM on October 19, 2007
Didn't expect it to be so interesting as I'm math challenged. After seeing what formula meant to different people it reminds me of the conceptual fun of Indexed with math added sometimes. Have to dash but looking forward to having a closer look when I get home.
posted by nickyskye at 12:03 PM on October 19, 2007
Wouldn't Dawkin's equation make "God did it" an infinitely powerful theory? The right side of the equation would be "Everything" over "Existence of God".
And that's not really Comic Sans superimposed over a blackboard, is it?
posted by Durhey at 12:19 PM on October 19, 2007 [1 favorite]
And that's not really Comic Sans superimposed over a blackboard, is it?
posted by Durhey at 12:19 PM on October 19, 2007 [1 favorite]
My equation, for what it's worth, is
?1 = (?2ka/cpL2 + Ska/ghcp)-1
It describes the first-mode time constant ?1 of a microscale V-beam thermal actuator, where ks is the thermal conductivity of silicon, cp is the specific heat of silicon, L is the actuator length, S is a geometrical shape factor, ka is the thermal conductivity of air, g is the air gap distance from the substrate, and h is the height.
I derived it several years ago and published it along with some accompanying experimental work. It's been used and cited by at least a few other research groups in the literature, which is all one can ask for and quite satisfying to boot.
posted by Mapes at 2:09 PM on October 19, 2007
?1 = (?2ka/cpL2 + Ska/ghcp)-1
It describes the first-mode time constant ?1 of a microscale V-beam thermal actuator, where ks is the thermal conductivity of silicon, cp is the specific heat of silicon, L is the actuator length, S is a geometrical shape factor, ka is the thermal conductivity of air, g is the air gap distance from the substrate, and h is the height.
I derived it several years ago and published it along with some accompanying experimental work. It's been used and cited by at least a few other research groups in the literature, which is all one can ask for and quite satisfying to boot.
posted by Mapes at 2:09 PM on October 19, 2007
Some are just banal or silly (like John Brockman's: "New Technologies = New Perceptions"--which could just as well be reversed & most often should be), but a couple are pretty good. Danny Kahneman's is actually funny & very close to an equation Bruce Duffy put in his Wittgenstein novel, The World as I Found It:
W/F = S [W=Will, F=Fear, S=Scope]
When I first came across that one I revised it to:
(W * T)/F = S [adding T=Talent]
Then, on further reflection, added the relevant exponent (and it does matter that much), Luck:
((W*T)/F)^L = S
It's a fun little game--but none of these entries compares to my all-time favorite (and completely insane) literary equation, Karl Kraus's formula for the female soul in his Aphorismen: I've never actually plugged that formula into Excel to see what its graph looks like. Should I?
posted by minnesotaj at 2:48 PM on October 19, 2007
W/F = S [W=Will, F=Fear, S=Scope]
When I first came across that one I revised it to:
(W * T)/F = S [adding T=Talent]
Then, on further reflection, added the relevant exponent (and it does matter that much), Luck:
((W*T)/F)^L = S
It's a fun little game--but none of these entries compares to my all-time favorite (and completely insane) literary equation, Karl Kraus's formula for the female soul in his Aphorismen: I've never actually plugged that formula into Excel to see what its graph looks like. Should I?
posted by minnesotaj at 2:48 PM on October 19, 2007
oh, minnesotaj, you shouldn't. Karl Kraus didn't get many dates, you want to bet?
posted by carmina at 3:02 PM on October 19, 2007
posted by carmina at 3:02 PM on October 19, 2007
Hell, I'll try: Wisdom = knowledge * experience.
posted by pax digita at 3:20 PM on October 19, 2007
posted by pax digita at 3:20 PM on October 19, 2007
i=(-1)^(1/2)
posted by Mental Wimp at 3:38 PM on October 19, 2007
posted by Mental Wimp at 3:38 PM on October 19, 2007
Carmina -- I'm not endorsing the Kraus... just pointing it out as (easily?) the most outrageous & notable example of the (admittedly limited) literary equation genre.
posted by minnesotaj at 4:03 PM on October 19, 2007
posted by minnesotaj at 4:03 PM on October 19, 2007
I am joking minnesotaj, or at least I am trying to!
posted by carmina at 4:06 PM on October 19, 2007
posted by carmina at 4:06 PM on October 19, 2007
If I were Mel, with my gang in the veldt,
And if chem were taught at U. of Borscht Belt,
Then my chosen notation
(Cribbed from some comfort station)
One could render as "Beans — comedy gelt."
posted by rob511 at 4:27 PM on October 19, 2007
And if chem were taught at U. of Borscht Belt,
Then my chosen notation
(Cribbed from some comfort station)
One could render as "Beans — comedy gelt."
posted by rob511 at 4:27 PM on October 19, 2007
Read one i liked recently via YC news link:
Ready. Fire. Aim.
posted by ba3r at 9:13 PM on October 19, 2007
Ready. Fire. Aim.
posted by ba3r at 9:13 PM on October 19, 2007
what is george dyson's equation about?
posted by sushiwiththejury at 11:48 AM on October 20, 2007
posted by sushiwiththejury at 11:48 AM on October 20, 2007
A redneck, having had the formula for the area of circle read to him, exclaimed, "Pie are square? No, pie are not square, pie are round. Cornbread are square."
posted by pax digita at 4:55 PM on October 20, 2007
posted by pax digita at 4:55 PM on October 20, 2007
Wouldn't Dawkin's equation make "God did it" an infinitely powerful theory? The right side of the equation would be "Everything" over "Existence of God".
Explanation==prediction. God can do anything has no predictive power whatsoever.
posted by Mental Wimp at 10:17 AM on October 22, 2007
Explanation==prediction. God can do anything has no predictive power whatsoever.
posted by Mental Wimp at 10:17 AM on October 22, 2007
Er, "God can do anything" has no predictive power whatsoever.
posted by Mental Wimp at 10:17 AM on October 22, 2007
posted by Mental Wimp at 10:17 AM on October 22, 2007
« Older Upside the head | 100 Artists Project Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by DenOfSizer at 8:18 AM on October 19, 2007