/sci/ - Science & Math

50%, he either is or he isn't

>14 just with coats no tie
>20 with neither

26/60
=13/30

are you retarded?

c'mon dude

you don't have enough information

anyone who replies with an answer is wrong

Nobody can solve this....

Too difficult.

isnt it 1/10?

20 are wearing a coat, 6 of those wear a tie. That's all you need to know. Am I correct in this reasoning?

6/60=1/10 or 10%.

>>4737370
Nevermind he doesn't give the entire population. Only 40/60

where did EK's post go? it was surprisingly correct

>>4737380
nope...i fucked up

thanks for drawing attention to that tho /embarrasment

>>4737384
you're only a woman. no one expects more from you.

>>4737384
...wait a sec, no i wasnt!
ahhhhhhhh FUUUUUCKCK!K!

i cant fuckin think straight, im gona sleep
bye!
!

>>4737384
no, 26/60 = 13/30 is correct

So if 20 of them are wearing coats, and 20 of them are wearing no coats, then how do those other 20 guys fit in to this? You're either wearing a coat or you aren't. There is no gray area.

>>4737393
WHo the fuck said the remaining 20 were wearing a tie?

>>4737400
if they weren't wearing a tie, then they would be "wearing neither a tie nor a coat"

>>4737391
Where are you getting 26? The 6 people wearing ties are a subset of the 20 coat wearers.

>>4737400
well it's 60 guys, they have to either be wearing a tie, wearing a coat, wearing both, or wearing neither - there aint any other possibilities

>>4737409
i know, and another 20 don't have a coat but do wear a tie

sure is retarded itt

>>4737409
plot the 1 variables first
coat - 20
neither - 20
theres 60 in total, therefore 20 with a tie
a nice 20-20-20 split

6 with a coat AND a tie
so 20 just with ties, + the 6 coat guys who also have ties = 26 with ties

>34 guys without ties
>implying this restaurant has class

>>4737412
Where are you getting this information? As far as we know from the problem, there are only 6 people wearing ties out of the entire 60 guys.

>>4737389
EK, you solved it ages before anyone and then deleted. Such humility and modesty in a woman arouses me. Marry me.

>>4737418
from OP's post

>>4737416
what restaurant?

>>4737418
hahaha you are so retarded

just look at the venn diagram

all the info except the 20 in the tie region is in the problem

but as there are 60 guys there has to be 20 there

hahahah

>>4737420
>EK
>Modest

pick one

>>4737424
OP's faggot bistro and grill

>>4737422
op post spoke only about 40 people wearing anything.

>>4737431
you mean him saying 20 are wearing a coat may mean, 20 are wearing a coat and also these 3 other guys wearing a coat making 23 total?

well it's possible i suppose

>>4737426
>>4737422
You and your venn diagram can get bent.

>>4737438
yeh, but then if 23 are wearing a coat in total out of the 60, then saying '20 are wearing a coat' is a lie

it would have to be "20 are wearing ONLY A COAT AND NOTHING ELSE!"

>>4737393
This venn diagram is correct; the answer is 26.

>>4737440
can't tell if troll or retard

>>4737440
law of excluded middle

checkum

>>4737448
>checkum
>>>/b/

>>4737444
trips says so

checkum

>>4737460
checkum

>>4737462
'Trips' is meaningless.
It is just luck as to if they come up in a pattern or not.

>>4737467
checkum harriet

26/60 - x/60, where x equals the undefined number of men that aren't wearing a tie

The ANSWER is 26/60, which reduces to 13/30
Jeez, Harriet, read the question a little so you know what is being asked for.

So ez with Venn-diagram, 13/30

i think OP just forgot to type out the whole problem

>>4738826
>i didn't read the thread

It could be either 20/60 or 26/60 based on the way its stated.

>>4737494
I did say 26.

As a probability this is 26/60, which cancels down to 13/30 as you said.
I meant 26 people, I think that you knew what I meant

The venn diagram gives 13/30, but OP's information is not reflected in the diagram - it shows a total of 60, OP only specified 40, - 20 with a coat (whereas 6 are wearing a tie) and 20 that wear NEITHER.

>>4738888
if you are wearing a coat and a tie, then you are wearing a coat

How can it be 26/60? How do you know that those 6 with both a coat and tie belong to the coat group? You don't. There is not enough information to answer the question accurately.

>>4738890
Yes, but that doesn't mean you can't group those with coats and those with a coat and tie as mutually exclusive.

>>4738896
if there were some people wearing a coat and tie who were not in the coat group of 20, then saying 20 people are wearing a coat would be a lie

>>4738901
no it wouldn't, 20 people would still be wearing coats either way.

>>4738903
"20 people are wearing a coat" is not usually read as "at least 20 people are wearing a coat" but as "exactly 20 people are wearing a coat"

if i say 17 people came to my birthday party, i don't usually mean actually 26 did

if you want to be a pedant about it though, go ahead

>>4738911
but this isn't conversation faggot this is math.

>>4738919
i refer the gentleman to the answer i gave earlier

>if you want to be a pedant about it though, go ahead

>>4738924
Assuming one answer as you did is bad math. In this case you would have to account for all possibilities of the given information because not enough information is given for a single answer.

>>4738928
>still mad

>>4738931
:)

Since it doesnt state what the remaining people are wearing they are in a state of flux between having a tie and not having a tie, so i submit they should all be counted as one half person wearing a tie.

>>4738928
Not the anon you're arguing with, but all math outside of logic is "bad math". Assumptions are made in a particular mathematical context without proving them. You don't have to prove multiplication is commutative every time you do some algebra, just as you don't assume aspie levels of linguistic exactitude when answering a high school probability question .

>>4738941
You are being very generous in your usage of "assumption". I thougt they were called axioms for a reason. But I am an aspie, so disregard me.

>>4738951
They are previously proven theorems or axioms

An axiom in this question would be "A statement about numbers of persons is the whole truth."

>>4738963
So then both 20 and 26 are correct.

>>4738969
no

20 is not correct. i'd like to see your reasoning how it could be.

>>4738974
14 are wearing a tie.

>>4738976
>>4738976
that contradicts this

there are 60 men 20 are wearing neither a coat and a tie, so 40 men are wearing either a coat or tie or both

6 of these are wearing a coat and tie, so 34 are wearing only 1 thing or another, not both, not neither

14 are wearing only a coat (because together with the 6 wearing both we get the 20 in the question)

so 20 must be wearing just a tie, no coat

tl;dr venn diagram

>>4738986
what mathematical rule necessitated that you consider those with both as those with coats?

>>4738991
the rule goes

if you are wearing a coat and a tie, then you are wearing a coat

>>4738991
Are you saying it is possible to wear a coat and a tie, but somehow not be wearing a coat?

>>4738995
but that does not mean that I can't exclude those who are wearing both in the grouping of those with coats and those with ties. The question doesn't state that it must be one way or another.

>>4738998
i don't follow you at all at all

if something has the property T and C then it has the property C

this is basic logic

>>4738998
>The question doesn't state that it must be one way or another.

do you mean there is a third possibility to wearing a coat or not wearing a coat?

>>4739001
>>4739001
It has property C, but it is not C it is CT.

>>4739005
you are looking for C^T (C and T)

and C^T => C (C and T implies C)

but i'm thinking you are probably trolling now, or very young.

>>4739005
None of these people ARE coats or ties, they are wearing them

And if you are wearing a coat and a tie, then you are wearing a coat.

>>4739010
C is a distinct state from CT and from N (none) and from T.

While CT contains properties from both CT, in of itself, it is not C nor T, but could be considered its own distinct form. Given the information, this possibility exists. Nowhere does it state that the total number of coat wearers is 20, it states that 20 people are wearing coats.

>>4739018
1/10

>>4737309

>>4739024
Where are the men not wearing a coat or tie?

>>4739024
>hard

that's why you got it wrong

see>>4737393

>>4739024
But this is not me. >>4739018

>>4739033
who claimed it was?

both of you are wrong though

>>4739036
How can it not be 20?

>>4739043
because you might get one of the 6 wearing a tie and a coat

so 26/60

>>4739051
>because you might get one of the 6 wearing a tie and a coat
>find the probability that he is wearing a tie.

So what?

>>4739056
someone wearing a coat and a tie will qualify as wearing a tie

>>4739056
Go up to someone wearing a coat and a tie, and ask them if they are wearing a tie. Go on, I dare you.

>>4739057
It can. To that is why it can be both 26 and 20 and possibly 14.

>>4739063
>it can

no it does

A^B => A

this is babby tier naive logic

and it can only be 26

go ask your math teacher, your herp is getting tedious

>>4739063
Try drawing a Venn diagram, like >>4737393 with different number, that doesn't contradict OP

>>4739067
AB =/= A

>>4739063
It can't be 14.

It's 20 if you only want them wearing a tie, 26 if they are wearing at least a tie.

>>4739083
AB doesn't mean anything in set theory

>>4739084
correct

but "wearing a tie" means "wearing a tie" whatever else they happen to be wearing

>>4739087
Cartesian product of A and B?

what the fuck are you guys talking about. Putting on a tie doesn't somehow negate your other clothing. Y'all niggas cray.

>>4739087
>implying mutually inclusive

>>4739090
not really meaningful or applicable here, unless you meant cartesian product of set of truth states

>>4739090
No, AB is its own set.

>>4739095
not at all. there are 6 people in C^T.

use notation correctly or gtfo

>>4739097
define it please

>>4739100
Ties and coats

we have been down this road before

>>4739093
Original question doesn't mention other clothing for people wearing coats and/or ties.

We could assume from the question that only 20 people are wearing clothing items which aren't coats or ties.

>>4739102
that is the same as T^C

T^C => C
T^C => T

>>4739105
No, they are each distinct sets.

>>4739102
draw a venn diagram or troll

you may even include unknowns/variables

>>4739107
troll

>>4739108
But there is no relation between any of the sets. There is no point in drawing one.

>>4739113
So the set of those wearing coats and ties is not a subset of those wearing coats?

2/10

I'm going to get some coffee now

Have fun

>>4739115
Why should it be?

>>4739070
But the venn diagram does include information OP didn't give, see
>>4738886

>>4739134
>In a group of 60 men

>elementary probability problem
>96 posts

proof that /sci/ is highschoolers and trolls

>>4739139
Where, 20 is wearing a coat, 6 of them also have a tie. 20 doesn't wear a coat or tie. Who said the remaining 20 are wearing a tie?

>>4739115
This is exactly it. You can't rationalize to me why ties and coats should be a subset and not its own set. There is no reason it should be one or the other, indiscriminate of its properties.

>>4739143
I'm pretty sure that everybody posting incorrect answers is doing so on purpose.

>>4739145
where would you put them then? without contradicting OP?

>>4739148
i would hope so

though i think some of this is english not being 1st language

sure is a lot of engineers making assumptions in here

>>4739155
I wouldn't put them anywhere. I would tell OP he's giving insufficient information.

>>4739160
law of excluded middle is a pretty sound assumption

>>4739166
if information is insufficient you can put them in more than one place without contradicting OP.

show me two such places

>>4739168
>still using formal logic
>2012
>not thinking dynamically
>behind the intellectual curve

>>4739173
We already have. Only ties is 14.

>>4739174
>still trolling sci
>not going outside in the sunshine
>2012

>>4739176
and where are the other 6?

>>4739177
>implying you are not the one getting trolled by me
>implying you are also not on /sci/
>implying you are in the sunshine
>implying that you are getting the better end of this exchange
>implying that I have not been laughing to myself this entire time

>>4739178
coats and ties

>>4739179
>enjoying pyrrhic victories

>>4739173
What is your point?
For all we know, this could be part a of a longer task, where the remaining 20 are wearing a pimp staff, thus the probability would be reduced to 1/10.

>>4739176
If only tie is 14, then coat and ties would be 26, for the group to be 60

>>4737309
this thread still fucking here??
how the fuck has this got over 100 posts?? its fairly obvious it's 26/60, in fact i was the first one to solve it

there are 4 possible states that can exist, and everyone can always be categorized into them.

you either:

A. have a coat and a tie
B. have a coat and no tie
C. have no coat and a tie
D. have no coat and no tie

no other options exist. Isn't this fucking obvious.

A = 6 (given)
A + B = 20 (given) -> B = 14
D = 20 (given)
A + B + C + D = 60 -> C = 20

people with a tie -> C + D = 26.
all people = 60

26/60
13/30

>>4739185
>not enjoying life no matter the circumstances

Enjoy being both emotionally and intellectually inferior my formal logistic friend.

>>4739186
>20 none
>20 coats
>6 coats and tie
>14 ties

>20+20+6+14 = 60

>not knowing how to do elementary level addition

>>4739189
your victory

enjoy feeling superior on the internet

>>4739191
The ones wearing a coat and a tie are among the coat-wearers, you moron.
>>4739187
EK, as stated before, how do you know that 20 are wearing only a tie?

>>4739187
It's a homework thread, why would anyone care about actually solving it?

>>4739194
>implying I care about superiority
>not realizing that my victory is the humor I find in the situation
>mfw you are taking this seriously

>>4739195
If the question holds the ultimate authority, only the question can confirm that this is the case. It doesn't, given this, there is no reason to assume that it is true.

>>4739195
yeh, ive worked it out now.
its 60 in total, rite?
so thats 20 with coats, and 20 without coats or a tie, meaning the other 20 that arnt accounted for MUST have ties.
but theres also the 6 people with coats that ALSO have a tie as well

20 + 6 = 26

simples

>>4739202
why aren't you on your knees gagging on my cock?

>>4739198
>implying you don't care
>implying furious back-pedalling
>implying no reply forthcoming to show how much you care

>>4739208
because they havent invented a microscope powerful enough to find it yet

>>4739202
>meaning the other 20 that arnt accounted for MUST have ties

No, that is an assumption you make, and the answer only holds autthority within this new situation you created.

From the given information, the probability is actually just 1/10. we have no idea what the remaining 20 are wearing.

>>4739212
but I'm not asking you to find it. All you do is get on your knees and put your arms behind your back and then I fuck your face.

>women confirmed for no reading comprehension and an incapacity for the following basic instructions

>>4739215
it said:
>20 are wearing neither a coat nor a tie
and for that to be true, the other 20 must have ties, otherwise they'd be in with one of the other 2 groups that are already classified (coats, or no-coat-no-tie)

>>4739215
They either have ties, or they don't.

so 50 50

not even trolling

>>4739209
Wait, what exactly am I not supposed to be caring about, superiority?

>>4739221
lol

>>4739218
not necessary- toothpicks have already been invented, your cock is redundant

>>4739227
>implying I can fuck your face with a tooth pick
>implying a tooth pick is not visible to the human eye
>implying face fucking can occur not involving genitals

women confirmed for being absent of any sort of rationality. and then you wonder why we just look at you as cum rags

>>4739220
>>4739219
That implies that you can only have a tie, a coat, coat and tie, or neither.
Again, you're making assuptions

>>4739232
i was saying its the size of a toothpick, dumb aspie
<<<

>>4739201
>that feel when no one can invalidate this

>>4739236
lel

>>4739236
post a picture for me, of someone wearing cloths, who fits into none of those 4 categories then.
just a quick cartoon, you can do it in MS paint.
label all seperate items of clothing

without looking at what these idiots posted, 33.333%

20 of them are wearing ties. 40 of them are not

20/60 = 1/3 = 33.333%

>>4739237
>because they havent invented a microscope powerful enough to find it yet
>i was saying its the size of a toothpick, dumb aspie

>needing a powerful microscope to find/observe a toothpick


What's the matter bitch? too many dicks in your mouth to think clearly?

>>4739243
dumass
>HUURRRR, im not gonna read the thread, or even read the question properly, im just gonna make a cunt of myself
uhuh...

>>4739242
>not looking at mathematical sets as abstract properties in accordance with mathematical logic
>looking at mathematical sets from the context of human qualitative reality

>>4739244
that was in a different posts, retard
>your penis is microscopic
>your penis is the size of a toothpick

pick one.
you're insulted either way

that was in a different post, retard
>your penis is microscopic
>your penis is the size of a toothpick

pick one.
you're insulted either way

>>4739249
>implying I am seek anything from you outside of a warm moist hole to cum inside of

>>4739253
you're a fucking sexist dickhead, i hope you never get laid

>>4739250
>implying I am seeking anything from you outside of a warm moist hole to cum inside of

>>4739254
your kind is more than willing to whore itself for money, thus prostitutes in abundance.

>>4739254
Oh but I already have.

>>4739256
99.99999% of women arnt whores, retard
myself included

enjoy your STI's, curb crawler

>>4739246
but I got the question right.

60 people - 20 non coat and non coat wears

40 people - 20 people wearing coats

20 people - 6 people wearing coats and ties

14 people people wearing just ties

14 people wearing ties plus 6 people wearing coats and ties = 20

problem?

>>4739258
>boasting about losing virginity on 4chan

>>4739258
well, hold tight of that memory, dickhead, coz it aint gonna happen again

>>4739261
you're right

whores get paid for being cum rags

most are just cum rags for free

>not realizing that whores are at least making a profit out of their raison d'etre
>women intelligence

>>4739262
fill this in, tard:
<<<

if it doesnt add up to 60, and any terms in the OP arnt accounted for, then you've fucked up

>>4739265
Why so grouchy? That time of month? Don't worry, the next time I fuck your ass I'll make sure to pull out.

>>4739267
and guys are just fucksticks for free!
i guess fairs fair!

(to everyone else, im not actually sexist, but this poster is clearly a twat)

>>4739273
1/10 would not bang

>>4739273
It may appear that way to the ignorant women who never has the opportunity to explore the world beyond the realm of a cum rag, but it just so happens that we run the world.

>>4739275
>but it just so happens that we run the world.
Thats just because women are usually less into politics than men

but thatcher? kirchner? merkel? gillard? and maybe palin?
it aint just men that rule the world, and give it a decade or so it'l be ~50/50

>>4739261
tall, Good looking guy reporting in. You're right, women don't whore themselves for money. They do it for free - surprisingly easy to have them cheat on their bf as well

>>4739283
short bald fat rich guy with oodles of charm and confidence checking in

this is true

>>4739273
>im not actually sexist
You're probably a gender-studies feminazi whore.

Atleast that's how it appears when every thread you get involved in spirals into a male vs female discussion.

>>4739279
>Believing that the name dropping of five women supersedes the millions of male politicians
>Naming Sarah Palin, who is borderline retarded
>Believing that the world is only run through politics
>not realizing that virtually every important contribution to science, sports, art, and business has been done by a man
>not realizing that meanwhile women were simply getting cum dumped inside of them

stay mad dumb bitch

>>4739283
>>4739285
Average looking dude with confidence reporting in

This is true.

Women are physiologically designed to be whores. It is in your very biology. Just accept it.

>>4739283
all humans are naturally promiscuous, altho im pretty sure the amount of people that would actually cheat if they're in a committed relationship would be quite low
no1 would give up a deep and fulfilling relationship just for one night of passion

>>4739293
Statistical evidence tells otherwise.

>>4739269
Stop assuming that the sets are mutual.

>women
>math

Pick one.

>>4739286
gender studies is shit tier, and only a few of the threads im in get trolled by sexist-tards

>Naming Sarah Palin, who is borderline retarded
to us, maybe
but she's running to be the AMERICAN president, so think it through =p

>not realizing that virtually every important contribution to science, sports, art, and business has been done by a man
thats because for thousands of years women were oppressed and just seen as house cleaning baby factories!
only in the last few decades or so have they actually been able to have careers!
in terms of recent advancements, we contribute just as much as men.

>>4739295
then post it
all im seeing is anecdotal claptrap

>>4739298
>thats because for thousands of years women were oppressed and just seen as house cleaning baby factories!

>actually believing that you were oppressed and not the very cause for your situation
>not realizing that it was women who enforced the switched from matrilineal egalitarian societies to patriarchal societies by commodifying sex
>dismissing an entire field to solidify beliefs
>acknowledging competency in Sarah Palin

bitches and whores

>>4739300
http://www.kinseyinstitute.org/publications/PDF/Infidelity%20in%20hetero%20couples.pdf

It is pretty much a statistical fact at this point. Men cheat more in marriages, women cheat more in all other situations. As marriage becomes obsolete (which it is), the latter statistic hold more value.

>>4739319
>Almost one-quarter of men (23.2%) and 19.2% of women indicated that they had ‘‘cheated’’ during their current relationship

well at least we're more honest than men, so you can still STFU.

<<< better system than monogamy

>>4739329
As I said. More men cheat in marriages. 58% of the men surveyed were married. Do the math. Instead of just reading the abstract, if you read the entire thing, you will see that what I said is true. But I understand if reading is beyond your capacity.

>>4739333
erm, i dont wanna read the whole fucking thing, i dont really care.
what point are you actually trying to make?
yeh, sure, some people cheat, some people are dishonest, of both genders! deal with it, etc.

i dont care what 'some people do' i only have to worry about what i do, and i dont cheat, so thats fine.
(INB4 polyamory counts as cheating. no it fucking doesnt, cheating implies an element of dishonesty)

>>4739329
Also, if you believe that one can acquire everything that a human needs from a relationship from just fucking, you are only further proving that you are a shallow vapid whore.

However, I will agree that monogamy is retarded.

>>4739337
i think if you have a good sex life, and good friendships, then that's all you need.
you dont even need both from the same source

>>4739336
It is simple. I don't plan on getting married for at least 10 more years, if ever. Whether or not married women cheat is irrelevant to my life as of this time. Hence why the latter statistic is more important. Also, if you didn't care, then why did you ask for evidence?

It is simple, you are stating you don't care because you now realize that are talking out of your ass and you have no intellectual basis from which to proceed. It is alright, being a women, you should be used to getting shit on.

Also, if you were only worried about what you did, then you wouldn't have been bothered by the sexism, because it wouldn't be applicable to you. You would not consider yourself a women, but simply an individual who doesn't exist in relation to any wholes. You aren't doing this though, you are just being full of shit again.

>>4739293
>all humans are naturally promiscuous
I'd like some studies on that, thanks - as certain forms of monogamy certainly could be preferred - at least in species where the youth extends as far as our children do.

>no1 would give up a deep and fulfilling relationship just for one night of passion
Sure, but cheating doesn't give up the relationship. No one plans to be caught in the act.

>>4739340
It is in our nature to be desireful, possessive, emotional and jealous. Your idealistic conception of a FWB relationship simply does not exist. It is essentially claiming that we could just be happy with what it is. If such people could function in this way then such people would be closer in nature to that of a Buddha. If such is our nature, then we are all enlightened. However, this is clearly not our nature.

>>4739344
>Also, if you didn't care, then why did you ask for evidence?

well >283 said
>women don't whore themselves for money. They do it for free - surprisingly easy to have them cheat on their bf as well
so i said:
>im pretty sure the amount of people that would actually cheat if they're in a committed relationship would be quite low
>no1 would give up a deep and fulfilling relationship just for one night of passion

and the statistic turned out to be less than 1/5 cheaters for women, so it doest really back up his point, it sounded like he was saying 'most women' as in, above 50%

>>4739363
19% of women and 33% of women in non married relationships is statistically significant.

>>4739353
>I'd like some studies on that, thanks
ah...see, i dont actually have any.
i know thats a bit rich seeing as i just asked for a study and anon delivered, i guess its just my take on humanity.
but like that other study showed, people of both genders are inclined to cheat occasionally, even though they perceive it as being a wrong thing to do. if you're married and you have a hot wife, you'll still recognise when other women are hot, and you might deep down wanna fuck them, but its just your respect for your wife and fear of the consequences that prevents you from persuing that.
same for us, even if we have bf's this doesnt magically stop other guys from being hot.
but similar, most people dont give in to it.

>>4739357
>It is in our nature to be desireful, possessive, emotional and jealous.
not mine, i never get possessive or jealous

>Your idealistic conception of a FWB relationship simply does not exist.
oh really? it might well be rare, but it can exist, i assure you.

>>4739374
>appeal to innocence

women

>>4739365
1/3 non married women would cheat??
or actually HAVE cheated according to that survey?
wow, that is surprisingly high.

>>4739377
I said your idealistic conception of FWB doesn't exist. FWB do, but they are nothing like you idealized.

>>4739383
whats the difference?

>>4739382
Have. These statistics are in regards to whether they did or did not cheat, not whether they would or wouldn't.

>>4739384
The difference being that FWB relationships fall victim to the same malaise of all other human relationships, including the ones found in the romantic relationships you are condemning.

>>4739386
yeh i know, it seems really high tho, and im suprised so many people would be so honest about it and just say that they cheat
i mean obviously the study will be done anonymously, but it still seems so high

>>4739390
its not quite as bad, theres no commitment, no pressure.
you can always just revert back to being normal friends, as in without 'benefits' if one or both of you chooses.

>>4739429
You seem very protective of this relationship..
You've had a couple of them, I assume?
Comforting, isn't it - when they find something better, you can comfort yourself in the idea that you were just friends anyways - nothing lost..

Do youe ver spend time with them in public? Kissing?

>>4739429
I think we established that anecdotal evidence is horse shit. You were the first one to bitch about it, but every single one of your claims has been just that.

There is ample evidence that elucidates upon the positive qualities of good romantic relationships and before you cry again, I'd be more than happy to provide sources.

>>4739429
And as made evident by your post, you are clearly afraid of both commitment and the pressure that comes with it.

Don't immerse yourself in delusions stemming from your insecurity. It is doing no one any good, especially you.

>>4739452
yeh, i dont like traditional relationships
...'something better'?
even if they do move on and decide to have a monogamous relationship with someone else, i'd still be friends with them, just without the 'benefits'
and i'd still values all the memories of it.
>better to have loved and lost than...
etc

and yeh, they are actually friends, as in 'FRIENDS with benefits' so, i hang out like normal, but its just, you can also fuck them if you both feel like it.
heheh.
im not particularly into public kissing,
hanging out in public or with a group of friends its always totally non sexual.

>>4739522
sure, i'll take sources if you've got em
but just out of curiosity, coz i aint particularly in the mood to get into any arguments at the moment.

>>4739527
im not insecure.
i mean yeh, i dont like commitment, but thats fair enough, rite?
its my choice whether to commit or not.

>>4739531
http://www.springerlink.com/content/a3726k081mt38275/

pretty simple overview for ya

Good romantic relationships = better development

bad romantic relationships ie fwb = jaded, cynical, insecure,socially atypical/inept people like you and me

the first step is acknowledging the insecurity my dear

>>4739532
if you were not insecure, you would not parade around 4chan in the attention seeking way you do. You aren't fooling anyone but yourself.

>>4739549
>fwb = jaded, cynical, insecure,socially atypical/inept people like you and me
nah, i dont think so
it'd be quite easy for a couple to just disconnect themselves from the rest of the world.
both could be each others only friend, and they'd get sexual fulfillment from each other, and thats all they need, but i think that's what'd make someone end up 'insecure,socially atypical/inept' etc, whereas someone who has a lot of friends and greatly values friendship, would probably be more socially healthy.

>>4739549
and thanks for the link, im reading it :)

>>4739557
but that isn't necessarily a good relationship. furthermore, if the couple is happy then it is perfectly ok. Also Fwb is not the only kind if bad relationships.

>>4739579
to be honest, i think either relationship type could work
a monogamous relationship probably COULD be great, if you approach it it right, and you're with the right person.
similarly, FWB can work, maybe some people try it and it just all goes wrong.

>>4739529
Heh, you're not exactly a 9/10, right?

>>4739585
by its very nature FWB neglects most of the beneficial aspects of a good relationship by shifting the focus to sex.

>>4739587
lol, i have no fucking idea. but i'm above average apparently

(the /10 system is so simplistic and flawed anyway, its pretty redundant. i've known a girl thats been rated as a 4 and a 7, on separate occasions, and another hat was a 6 and a 10. clearly guys cant even agree amongst themselves.)
INB4 hurr durr, anecdotal evidence, because theres nothing to cite here, and its obvious that the /10 system is only opinion based.

>>4739595
no, thats not it!
its not all about sex, thats the thing, sex isnt even the main part of it, its like you're 95% normal friends, but oh wow, you also have a dick!
still chatting, drinking, seeing films, going out.

you're probably picturing it as we just meet up, fuck, and piss off, but no, thats like 1-night-stand, territory, and im not so keen on that.

>>4739608
Everything is opinion based, the difference between anecdotal evidence and scientific consensus is that anecdotal is your experience, scientific consensus is something that has been testably observed by many people multiple times without disagreements.

themoreyouknow.jpg

>>4739613
a romantic relationship is simply being friends with someone who you love and are intimate with, + sex. The commitment is part of the love. It is like having another family member. Regardless of your other life circumstances, many people will still always be committed to their family members. That is what commitment is, being there for someone as an extension of yourself.

if this is what you consider FWB, then you have a very different terminology then what I have encountered. In my understanding, FWB is similar to a romantic relationship, with more emphasis on the sex, less on the intimacy and commitment. This diminishes the value of the actual relationship by making it replaceable and therefore relatively insignificant. You can't do that with something you really love unless you are approaching some Zen level of understanding as i stated above. Therefore, you never reach the highest levels of intimacy, love, and compassion that you could achieve in a romantic relationship by marginalizing it from the beginning.

>>4739608
I was just thinking about the fact that men will most likely "show" you to his friends, if you're good looking. Just as women will do.

>>4739636
>being friends with someone who you love and are intimate with
i dont find love/attachment to be necessary
friendship with people that are actually really really nice, and intelligent, and interesting, is fucking wonderful. why would i need more than that?
ive never been in love, btw.

huh...maybe ive been using the term wrong then.
so its exactly like being in a normal relationship, be great friends, have great sex, except that theres no jealousy, no possession, neither of you has to be suspicious of the other, and you're both free to have multiple other lovers, and as long as you're intelligent enough to keep a close watch on your sexual health, its totally fine.
INB4 slut

i define a slut to be someone who fucks multiple random strangers that they dont care about at all, they just want a quick fuck. thats like the total opposite of what i do.

>>4739659
lol, its not like a formal showing, its just natural that you're gonna hang out at some point, and meet their other friends.

2 possible answers depending on whether the 20 wearing a coat includes those who are wearing a coat and tie.

so its either 26/60 or 20/60

>>4739668
>no jealousy, no possession, neither of you has to be suspicious of the other

none of this is intrinsic to a relationship but moreso the way in which humans engage relationships

>i dont find love/attachment to be necessary
I didn't say it was necessary, but love of any kind is the precursor to happiness and fulfillment.

And quite frankly, I don't believe you. Indicative of your posts is that you do not know yourself very well, and unless you are of the sociopathic/narcissistic quality (which wouldn't overwhelming surprise me), there is no normal human that doesn't want love.

>>4739686
it has to be 26, otherwise the sentence '20 are wearing a coat' is a lie

>hi EK, are you wearing a coat?
no
>...wat?? wtf?
no, because im wearing a coat AND A TIE! its not just a coat!
>...fuck off, aspie

see?

>>4739697
>there is no normal human that doesn't want love.
honestly, im not fussed.
ive never felt any need for it.

>>4739713
You can't deny it. Your suppressed need for love is the reason why you shitpost on /sci/.

>>4739706
but these coats and ties are simply representative of mathematical sets, not of an actual situation in reality

>>4739717
that doesnt make any sense. does anyone expect to find 'love' on 4chan?
may i remind you that 1/3 of us are /b/tards


no
i just like conversation

>>4739713
do you love your parents?

what about yourself?

>>4739722
i think someone said something like that before
and i think you're overcomplicating the problem.
26/60 is correct.

>>4739727
oh yeh, i love my parents
well, i think
but its wierd, coz the connection is as strong as i feel for my friends i rekon
so do i not love my parents, or do i love all my friends?

w/e, i dont really care, either way its a very strong feeling of liking someone, and if thats love, then yeh, i love it. and if its not, then whatever love actually is, i dont need it.

>>4739726
Of course it makes sense. You feel more comfortable on 4chan than in the real world. Even the negative attention you get here is better than the total lack of attention you get outside.

>>4739729
over complication is relative. but the fact is 20, 14, or 26 are all possibly correct given certain qualifiers. however from the context of human intuition 26, is most likely correct

>>4739735
Ever spent the whole day with someone and had a great time? Come home and had passionate sex and spent hours cuddling and kissing afterwards? Is the feeling you get in these moments what you feel all the time?

>>4739738
i dont have a 'lack of attention outside'
i dont have any brothers or sisters, so i get ALL the attention from my parents (except the attention they give each other, of course)
and i have quite a lot of friends.
some are like 'stronger' friends than others, people ive known for a long time, or know very deeply, but still, quite a lot of friends overall.

>>4739740
erm, i dont think so
could you post the venn diagrams for 20 and 14 please?
i wont make fun of you, i just dont think theres a way they could be created where its even possible to interpret them as being correct.

>>4739751
there wouldn't be venn diagrams because the sets are exclusive. there is no relationship to exhibit between the sets, they would be considered unique. It is more abstract.

>>4739745
>Ever spent the whole day with someone and had a great time?
well, most of the day at least, yeh.

>Come home and had passionate sex and spent hours cuddling and kissing afterwards?
HOURS of cuddling? well, no.

>Is the feeling you get in these moments what you feel all the time?
well, no, perfect days are rare, of course. i think they are for everyone.

<
What the hell is this? Is it real?
<

>>4739755
erm, yeh, still sounds like an overcomplication.
as far as i can see, for each of the 60 men there are only 4 options

hat
tie
both
neither

>>4739759
well then you have missed out

I've had weeks and months of this before

>>4739765
can you into 'posting mode: new thread', motehrfucker?

>>4739766
compartmentalize the men dependent on the exact assortment of the attire specified in the problem and you have sets of both, neither, and two for the individuals

>>4739765
Learn to google.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_snake_%28firework%29

And this whole thread is the reason why asians get the job.

X = probable random tie
Y = total men (60)
A = total men clothing identified (46)
B = total men with ties (6)
C = total men with coats (20)
D = total men with no coat or tie (20)


X = A/B * Y