/sci/ - Science & Math

>>10183198
of course the mean of any two consecutive primes con't be prime, it's between them

something something first double bag, second turn one inside out, third double bag again, something something

>>10183198
Define "heterosexual intercourse"

>>10183198
anal?

>>10183227
define defining

>>10183227
If you ask that the HR is going to trash you anon

>>10183230
Not safe sex

Two guys use the same condom (at the same time)

Or one guy uses the entirety of the other guy as a condom to fuck the woman. (He's not fucking the man even though his penis is in his asshole, he's merely using him as a condom, in the same way you're not fucking a condom when performing sexual interxourse with a woman)

>>10183198
First one fucks without?

tiddyfuck

>>10183599
this

I figured it out! Stand back everyone, big shot coming through.

Let [math]M_1,M_2,M_3[/math] denote the three men. Let [math]F[/math] denote the female. Let [math]\supset_1, \supset_2[/math] denote the condoms.
We will say that M_1 fucked F with condom 1 by writing [math]M_1\supset_1 F[/math]. It is also possible to double bag condoms.
Moreover, it is possible to flip condoms inside out, we will denote this with a superscript, i.e. condom 1 flipped is denoted [math]\supset^1[/math].

Now the solution is as follows:
1. [math]M_1\supset_1\supset_2 F[/math]
2. [math]M_2\supset_2 F[/math]
3. [math]M_3\supset^1\supset_2 F[/math]

Note, it is okay to doublebag the condoms because we are given as an axiom that they will not break. This is not okay in real life as doublebagging greatly increases the risk of breakage.

>>10183198
>one women
is that conjoined twins?

>>10184368
Correct answer, but non-standard notation. In the future, use [math]M_3\supset_1^{-1}\supset_2F[/math].

>>10184407
Fuck, how do you do this?

>>10184407
I didn't want to use that because it would imply that doing
[math]\supset_1\supset_1^{-1}[/math]
is isomorphic to fucking raw and it clearly isn't.

>>10184414
You might be confused about the definition of the contraceptive inverse. In general, we have:
[eqn]A\supset_1\supset_2\ldots\supset_{n-1}\supset_n B\iff B\supset_n^{-1}\supset_{n-1}^{-1}\ldots\supset_2^{-1}\supset_1^{-1}A.[/eqn]So, the only condom that can satisfy the relation [math]A\supset_1\supset_1^{-1}B[/math] is the null condom.

>>10184462
Fuck, this isn't working.

>>10183599
lmao

>>10184368
Genius.

>>10184368
Why do you have to double bag at all?

>>10183599
>Two guys use the same condom (at the same time)
What?

>>10184489
What's your solution

>can the mean of any two consecutive prime numbers be prime
>consecutive prime numbers

Really jogs the nog.

>>10184489
With two condoms, you have four total surfaces. The woman gets one surface, and each guy gets a surface. You double bag so that you can use surfaces from different condoms at the same time.

>>10183198
Two dudes put their dicks into one condom at the same time

>>10184500
Gay and not safe.

>>10184497
Are you implying there aren't consecutive prime numbers? Because there are, retard

>>10184462
>>10184467
That inverse notation is only used when things cancel out under some sort of composition or multiplication. In this context the identity would have to be no condom but composition of condoms (i.e. doublebagging) doesn't result in cancellation.

That notation would only make sense if you could do stuff like this
[math]M_1\supset_1^3\supset_1^{-2}F = M_1\supset_1 F[/math]

>>10184489
See picture. Do you have another solution that doesn't involve double bagging? Keep in mind that since there are only two condoms. with two sides each (i.e. four sides total), each person must be assigned their own side of a condom. That means that the woman can't use both condoms separately.

>>10184500
>>10183599
Retards

>>10184500
>>10183599
>>10184513
Retards

>>10184506
As opposed to the supposedly correct answer of double bagging and turning them inside out?

>>10183198
Give 2 guys the condoms and have them take the ass and vagina. Then, have the 3rd guy on the mouth because STD's can't be transmitted orally

>>10183198
Elementary conundrum.

What's my prize?

>>10183198
One in the pink, one in the stink, one in the hand?

>>10184368
Include me in the screencap

>>10184526
>because STD's can't be transmitted orally

>>10184549
stomach acids and saliva would kill any pathogens in the ejaculate

>>10184507
Prime numbers are social construct, bigot. So is math.

>>10184507
2,3 thats it.

>>10184553
>>10184527

>>10184526
Speaking of oral, your mom should have swallowed you.

>>10184563
Well technically they're not wrong.

>>10184577
well 2.5 isn't prime, so the answer to the OP is no

>>10184580
If only 1 were prime too.

>>10184584
the answer would still be no, any consecutive primes would average to a number ending in .5, also any twin primes will average to the even number between then, which are never prime.

>>10184569
prove it bitch

>>10184588
[math]1,2,3[/math] are consecutive and [math]\textrm{avg}(\{1,2,3\})[/math] is [math]2[/math].

>>10184594
Take a grade school health class on safe sex, idiot.

>>10184605
>any two consecutive primes
>two
can you not count, or can you not read?

>>10184605
The question says two consecutive primes

>>10184605
>"A teacher told me therefore it must be true"
yet I'm the dumb one

>>10184563
What's your point? That I was right?

>>10184509
>>10184467
>>10184462
>>10184414
>>10184407
>>10184368

here you go. illustrated.

>>10184623
kek

>>10184615
Go ahead, share condoms and suck diseased dick. I don't care.

>>10183226
>double bagging
>safe
Pick one.

>>10184630
when did i say share condoms. Don't put words in my mouth.

>>10184639
I called two retards out. One who shared condoms >>10184527 and one who thinks oral STDs aren't a thing >>10184553

>>10184622
well I wasn't the first guy, so basically yes.

>>10184652
if can't handle talking to 2 people at once. Then don't

>>10184657
>>10184639
Sorry, my mistake. I Should've known which retard I was talking to the moment you said
>Don't put words in my mouth.

>>10184659
>retard
keep telling yourself that, maybe it'll become true eventually.

>>10184665
https://www.webmd.com/a-to-z-guides/oral-herpes#1

>>10183599
fucking kek, well done anon

>>10184667
>ORAL herpes
oral =/= sexual therefore it isn't an STD

>>10184674
>oral =/= sexual
sour grapes

She just jacks two of them off you fucking spergs

>>10184791
>t. never learned the word "intercourse"

>>10184798
Jacking someone off is quite obviously outercourse, not intercourse

>>10184798
>Embarrassed to have overlooked this elegant solution, anon resorts to pedantry

>>10184822
>elegant solution
>falls apart under pedantry
lmao gb2/lit/ you brainlet. This is /sci/ pedantic solutions are the only solutions.

>>10184958
>muh board culture
Okay here's your pedantic solution: the woman fists one man while getting dicked by the other two. Now that I've quelled your autism, we can discuss how most ideal answers involve the woman using manual stimulation before opening the conversation on how you've never had sex.

>>10184982
>board culture
It's math people culture.
>the woman fists one man while getting dicked by the other two. Now that I've quelled your autism
Fisting counts as safe. I think that actually is an elegant solution, certainly much better than your garbage non-solution in the last post.

>>10184368
>Let [math]\supset_1, \supset_2[/math] denote the condoms.
heh
pretty good solution too

>>10183198
I think we're missing some definitions here.
Is intercourse limited to only vaginal sex? or is any orifice kosher? would a handjob count as intercourse?
Also how do we define 'safe'? is safe referring to minimum risk of pregnancy or are diseases taken into account?
i.e: would a blowjob or anal sex be considered 'safe' without a condom? the risk of pregnancy is not there but plenty of room is left for diseases.

Told u y'all niggas were gay

>>10185057
Isn't double bagging considered less safe than just putting on the regular condom?
Something about friction increasing the chance for tears?

>>10185060
Unbreakable condoms. Read the instructions or you're never going to make it.
But also if you weren't a virgin you'd know and would ask about double bagging

>>10185061
>Read the instructions or you're never going to make it.
mother fucker, this is my Achilles heel, missing points like that in a question.
I've fucked up so many questions specifically because of that.

>>10184368
Putting your dick in a condom another man has used is not safe.

>>10184674
It's the same virus you nonce

>>10183198
The two black guys fuck the woman while the husband sits in the corner and jerks off.

>>10183599
>Heterosexual
That's pretty gay anon.

>>10183198
Leave one man out to be cuckolded

>>10183198
Spill the beans anon. I need to know the answer if I'm ever stuck on a deserted island with two other dudes, one chick, and two condoms.

>>10183198

"safe" for pregnancy or also "safe" for STDs?

>>10187369
is that still cuckoldry? while being denied sex by mistress, gf, wife so she can cheat is cuckoldry in a loose sense, and raising the child of her lover(s) is classic cuckoldry, is being kicked out of a threesome cuckoldry if you just go home?

>>10187374
posted it earlier

Have one of the guys identify as a woman.

>>10183198
god you all are virgins. this is the actual solution
>one condom for guy in pussy
>one condom for guy in ass
>no condom needed for guy fucking her mouth

all three have safe hetero sex. qed

>>10189742
>he thinks sticking his dick in a diseased mouth is safe

You go do that.

>>10184492
they stick their penises into the same condom at the same time

>>10183198

Gangbang's theorem states that, for n condoms marked as [math]c_1, c_2, ..., c_n[/math] where n is a natural number, [math]2n - 1[/math] males can explore the same woman without a contradiction.

Proof:
Statement 1. (on the theoretical upper bound): each condom has two taintable surfaces. Therefore, the theoretical upper bound for m is 2n.

Statement 2. (on the trivial case): in the trivial case where [math]n = 1[/math], both surfaces of the condom are tainted simultaneously and cannot be reversed, therefore [math]m = 1[/math].

Statement 3. (on the improved theoretical upper bound): For every n, if [math]m = 2n[/math], every condom will have been used twice. However, the last condom ([math]c_1[/math] or [math]c_n[/math]) cannot actually be reversed. Therefore, the improved theoretical upper bound must be at least one lower than the earlier proposed upper bound; that is, [math]2n - 1[/math].

Statement 4. (on the second trivial case): in the trivial case where [math]n = 2[/math], [math]m = 3[/math] as proven by [1],

Statement 5. (on a proposed lower bound): for [math]n > 2[/math], a proposed lower bound may be obtained by reducing the problem to [math]n - 1[/math] cases of condom pairs of the form [math](c1, ci)[/math], where [math]1 < i < n - 1[/math], summing the results mi and subtracting [math]n - 2[/math] to eliminate duplicate uses of condom [math]c_1[/math].

Therefore [math]m = \Sigma m_i = (n - 1) * 3 - (n - 2) = 3n - 3 - n + 2 = (3n - n) + (-3 + 2) = 2n - 1[/math].

Statement 6. (on the equality of lower and upper bounds): The proposed lower bound is equal to the improved theoretical upper bound. Therefore, the correct answer is [math]2n - 1[/math] QED

[1] >>10184368

>>10189971
Dr. Gangbang, can we generalize this result to include an abitrary number of women?

>>10189971
Interesting, I thought the idea could be generalized for [math]n[/math] condoms but I couldn't quite see how to do it. Still, feels nice to be cited.

Hmmm ...... ok its 3 men 1 woman 2 condoms......one guy has dueling personalities, other guy is normal and its a basic threesome. Of 3 bodies

>>10183198
>>10184368
While I agree on this solution, we are operating with a few more axioms (not specifically stated in the text):
a)Both sides of the condom are equally functional for both sides of the intercourse
b)A condom does not degrade (e.g. lubrication) with repeated use
Considering these preconditions, the solution is rather self-evident

>>10183198
Obviously two men use condoms and the other gets a handjob.

>>10183198
One guy watches from the closet.

>>10191185
kek

>>10184368
>>10191177
It is also mandatory to assume that sperm is the only unsafe product (while not saying anything on M1 touching the exterior of C1 while putting it on)

>>10183198
Dumb question designed to mislead brainlets into thinking "safe" means not transmitting STDs. The only way of answering the question is to assume that safe means not impregnating.

>>10184560
You're a Sokal construct m8.

>>10184623
Doesn't prevent STD transmission from female to male, so it isn't safe.

>>10183226
Damn I never would have thought of that, that works

>>10185057
>hurdurr the woman can't have an STD
No wonder the book was written by a Jew

>>10192173
The woman CAN have an std, which is why it's done like this so nobody touches the vagina stained side of a condom with their dicks.

>>10192173
You're retarded
You have like 5 explanations and drawings already, and from any of them even a brainlet can see that none of the guys will end up touching the side that was in contact with the female

>>10183198
Assume consecutive primes are the primes p, p + k, where p is prime and k is the smallest natural number such that p + k is prime (k is not zero).
The mean of p and p + k is 0.5 * (p + p + k) = 0.5 * (2p + k) = p + 0.5 * k.
Now as 0.5 * k < k for all natural numbers k, p + 0.5 * k cannot be prime as we have defined p + k to be the smallest prime greater than p. Hence the mean of two consecutive primes cannot itself be prime.

>>10193156
I love it.
Here's a non constructive proof:
The mean of 2 and 3 is not prime.
Since all primes other than 2 are odd, their mean is even and greater than 2. Q.e.d.

>>10193184
Scratch that. Doesnt work.

>>10185057
Sounds like M3 mixes M1's and M2's sperm which is pretty gay. Here's how you actually do it:

Let M1 be the trappiest man of the three, with the most feminine penis. So long as M2 and M3 remember to say "no homo" before fucking him it is still heterosexual. Therefore one man can pair off with the woman, and the other man can pair off with M1, each with their own condoms.

>>10193156
>>10193184
mean of two numbers is their midpoint on the number line. It would be a standing contradiction to say the midpoint between two adjacent primes is prime.

>>10184368
you dont have to double bag 3. do you? As long as the inner surface of the condom is clean its considered safe, so you only have to double bag once to get 3 clean surfaces for the men. Youre unnecessarily denying one of the men sensation.

>>10193259
oh i just realized thats to protect the roasty. Lmaoooooo

>>10183198
A fucks with Condom 2 on top of Condom 1

B fucks with Condom 2

C fucks with Condom B on top of Condom A inside out.

>>10184368
>Let ⊃1,⊃2 denote the condoms
I don't even care if you're right, this is hilarious

>>10192160
look again. the red condom never gets inverted.

>>10183599
this is the best post I've seen in months

>>10193259
>>10193264
to be fair if she's getting triple-teamed in a situation where she only has 2 condoms she probably has more STDs than any of the men anyway

>>10183599
How does it feel living with such a big IQ?

>>10184527
you get to try that with op

>>10183198
>You just need one female condom amd one male one. Since they can't break there's no issues.

>No.

>>10191219
any wench going threes up can put it on with her mouth

>>10183599
>fucking a dude in the ass
>hetero sexual

>consecutive primes = consecutive integers that are prime
You can't be this dumb. If it were "consecutive integers that are prime", then it would say "consecutive integers that are prime", not "consecutive primes"

>>10183599
This

>>10193825
It's only gay if the balls touch

>>10183599
include me in the screen cap

>>10183198
2 men wear the second condom. rubbing dicks together never gave you an STD
it's also not gay because the balls don't touch

>>10194709
So, you down to rub dicks then?

>>10194714
rubbing dicks together is the great american pastime
your place or mine

>>10184414
>Implying were working in an abelian condom-space
To be sure I'd expand the condom-space to a condom-algebra by adding [math][A,B][/math] (Bangbracket or corpulator), so that [math]\supset_1\supset_1^{-1} = \supset_1^{-1}\supset_1 \iff [\supset_1^{-1},\supset_1] = 0[/math].
This, I suppose, would only ever happen if the Operator [math]M[/math] acting on [math]\supset_1[/math] is either impotent or for some reason unable to project enough jizzm into either [math]\supset_1[/math] or [math]F[/math] directly, in which case there wouldnt be a need to use [math]\supset_1[/math] anyways.

>>10183198
One man puts his penis in her ass, the other man puts his in her vagina, the third guy puts his in her mouth. Guy #3 doesn't need a condom because you can't get pregnant from oral.

>>10183198
>First guy puts on both condoms and fucks the slut.
>Second guy uses the outer condom and fucks the slut
>third guy takes the inner condom, flips it over, places the outer condom on it, and then fucks the slut
ez

>>10194997
>One man puts his penis in her ass
>Guy #3 doesn't need a condom because you can't get pregnant from oral.

>>10183599
Dubs confirm

>>10183599
>(He's not fucking the man even though his penis is in his asshole, he's merely using him as a condom, in the same way you're not fucking a condom when performing sexual interxourse with a woman)
That is, hands down, the most autistic thing I have ever read. And I browse 4chan like 20 hours a week. Congratulations. You are the Chosen One.

>>10183599
jesus fucking christ

>>10185057
But wait, if you turn C1 inside out it'll have M1's brogurt all over it, thus defeating the purpose of using a condom in the first place.

>>10196272
A better explanation is here. >>10184368

>>10183609
Not safe for either of them then

>>10197166
That hardly seems like a solution, unless we're given as an axiom that no spunk from C1 will leak out from under C2, in which case I think we're drifting pretty far from reality.

>>10197874
The original problem does say they cannot leak or break. Is it realistic? No, but it solves the problem as written.

>>10184368
>>10184623
I realized the solution was double bagging early on but had trouble visualizing the correct order to solve it, it definitely helps to make up a notation to solve it or draw it out. Do you reckon in the oregano interview they had to solve it in their head?

>>10183198
>1 dude fucks her up her mouth
>1dude fucks her in ass with condom
>1dude fucks her in vagina with condom

She has three holes bro, it aint hard

>>10183599

>>10183599
Why not save the second condom and have the third guy use the second guy as a condom in the same way at the same time? If double bagging is allowed, we might as well.

>>10183198
Let the guy without a condom put his dick between two dicks with condoms.
Let me illustrate:
1 - dick with condom
0 - dick with no condom
| - - vagina

|------|
|101|
|------|

>>10183599
this is the epitome of 4chan education
tells you why none of you neets can be adapted into society

>>10183198
>woman has sex with the first man in June, he uses a condom
they don't meet again
>woman has sex with the second man in July, he also uses a condom
they don't meet again and she then gets engaged to the third man two years later after abstaining from sex.
>the third man and the woman have sex without a condom the night of their wedding -- their marriage vows providing security in the event of pregnancy.

>>10198050
>>1 dude fucks her up her mouth
You can still catch STDs this way, bro.

>>10198113
Middle guy can get an STD from the girl this way.

>>10198118
This anon is thinking out of the box.

>>10198118
>guy 3 married a whore who fucked two guys in as many months
cuck

>>10183198
One guy fucks her in the mouth with a condom, another guy fucks her in the ass with another condom, and the third guy fucks her in the vagina without one because STDs can't be transmitted vaginally.

>>10183198
What is question 1.53 even asking? What do they mean by "consecutive prime"?

>>10184368
Wouldn't there be a fuck load of cum trapped between condoms 1 and 2 during the 3rd guys fuck sesh? I know they can't break, but you can't wash them out either so slippage would be a major concern.

>>10200409
Primes that aren’t separated by another prime according to the standard ordering of the naturals. So, say, 7 and 11 are consecutive primes, as are 11 and 13, but 13 and 19 are not consecutive primes because 17 falls between them.

>>10183599
Lamao

>>10183599
100% hired

>>10200407
" STDs can't be transmitted vaginally"

this deserves a ban

Me again, >>10184509
>>10189971
We don't have to rely on bounds in order to generalize. Consider the case where there are an odd number of guys and one girl:
>In other words, let [math]m[/math] denote the number of men and [math]f=1[/math] denote the number of women. We're considering the case where [math]2|m+f[/math] and the number of condoms is [eqn]c=\frac{m+f}{2}[/eqn]
>Choose one guy and separate him from the rest. Call him "Team [math]B[/math]".
>After removing the first guy there are an even number of men remaining. Split this group in half, call the first half "Team [math]A[/math]", and the second half "Team [math]C[/math]".
>For condoms choose one and name it [math]\supset_B[/math] .
>The idea then is that each member on team [math]A[/math] will grab a fresh condom (aside from [math]\supset_B[/math]) and use it by double bagging with [math]\supset_B[/math]. Then the solo Team [math]B[/math] member will use [math]\supset_B[/math] by itself (no double bagging). Finally each member of Team [math]C[/math] will get a in inside out condom from a Team [math]A[/math] guy and once again doublebag with [math]\supset_B[/math]. The whole thing looks like this:
1. [math]A_i\supset_i\supset_B F[/math] for [math]1\leq i\leq c-1[/math]
2. [math]B\supset_B F[/math]
3. [math]C_i\supset^i\supset_B F[/math] for [math]1\leq i\leq c-1[/math]

Then for the case where the number of men is even we do basically the same thing but end up using half of an extra condom.

>>10183599
I love this dumbass site

Microsoft and other tech companies used this question for programmers interviews up until around 2000. By then HR and PC junk started leaking into the companies so it was considered inappropriate and banned.

>>10200485
That's what I thought, but then by definition of consecutive, the answer is automatically no?

>>10183599
based genius

>>10183599
330% based

>>10183599
This is what anime does to your brain kids.

>>10184492
Huh?

>>10183198
First guy wears both, one (1) inside the other (2). Second guy wears just 2. Third guy wears 1 inverted with 2 not inverted over it. No one makes contact with a surface anyone else has already.

>>10183599
Don't include me in the screencap

>>10202176
Yeah, but this is an interview question for business majors

>>10183599
tickled me.

>>10183198
Le wat