/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.8152249]

Since I can't help myself otherwise, I'm gonna come up with a first order theory of picking up girls.

The terms are people P. Let a,b,c:P range over guys and x,y,z:P range over girls. With unary predicates h, b, u, we classify each into hot, basic and ugly. Consider a binary predicate, F, denoting "wants to fuck"

So we have the axioms

[math] \forall a. \, \forall x. \, h(x) \to F(a,x) [/math]

[math] \forall x. \, \exists a. \, F(a,x) [/math]

[math] \forall x. \forall a. [F(x,a) \to \exists y. \, (\neg(y=x) \land F(y,a))] [/math]

[math] \neg \exists a. \, \exists x. \, [u(a)\land F(x,a)] [/math]

and

[math] c(a) \to \forall x. \, F(x,a) [/math]

where c denotes the Chad predicate.

Needs more input. To make it more fun, I'd like to introduce modalities.

[Anonymous No.8152254]

the fuck is all this nerd shit

[Anonymous No.8152261]

>[math]\forall x. \, \exists a. \, F(a,x)[/math]

>tfw [math]\neg\exists a[/math]

:^(

[Anonymous No.8152262]

[math] \forall a. \, c(a)\to h(a) [/math]

[Anonymous No.8152267]

>>8152261
[math]... \to \neg (x\in P) [/math]

[Anonymous No.8152268]

>>8152249
fuck me she looks like a young adriana lima

[Anonymous No.8152272]

>>8152249
how's uni fresher?

[Anonymous No.8152278]

>>8152249
9/10
You only hurt my autism when you defined c both as a person and as a predicate.

[Anonymous No.8152279]

>>8152268
Symmetric boney face?

PS I was kinda lazy with just introducing different letter for guys and girls. If one wants this done properly and with a single type/domain of discourse (people), one would have to use predicates male [math]m[/math] and female [math]f[/math] and make all quantifier bounded

So if R is a predicate and we want to quanify over males as in,
[math]\forall a.\, R(a)[/math]
this should really be read as
[math]\forall p.\, m(p) \to R(a) [/math]
where p denotes a person.

>>8152272
I just want gf

[Anonymous No.8152281]

>>8152268
Symmetric boney face?

PS I was kinda lazy with just introducing different letter for guys and girls. If one wants this done properly and with a single type/domain of discourse (people), one would have to use predicates male [math]m[/math] and female [math]f[/math] and make all quantifier bounded

So if R is a predicate and we want to quanify over males as in,
[math]\forall a.\, R(a)[/math]
this should really be read as
[math]\forall p.\, m(p) \to R(p) [/math]
where p denotes a person.

>>8152272
I just want gf

>>8152278
Oh, right. Cruel of me.

[Anonymous No.8152283]

how does one read the 3rd axiom

[Anonymous No.8152297]

>>8152283
"If a girl wants to be with a guy, that guys also becomes more interesting to other girls."

∀x. ∀a. [F(x,a) → ∃y.(¬(y=x) ∧ F(y,a))]
For any girl and any guy, if the girl wants to fuck the guy, then there is a girl who is not the first one (i.e. there is a second girl, who also wants to fuck that guy).

That's a common scheme. In
∃s. ∃t. P(s,t)
the terms s and t could potentially be the same. If P is "loves", then it would already be true if there is someone who loves himself.
If you write
∃s. ∃t. [¬(s=t) ∧ P(s,t)]
then for this to be true, P(s,t) must hold for a case where t is different from s.

[Anonymous No.8152298]

>>8152249
Step 1: stop doing shit like this

[Anonymous No.8152301]

>>8152298
Unless that's necessary to get a girl, you'll also have to provide the rest of the steps

[Anonymous No.8152308]

>>8152297
yeah i understood it before you posted so deleted comment, never done logic

[Anonymous No.8152311]

>>8152301
Yeah, I'll wait until you add the 99999999999999999 amount of variables that factors in when getting girls that you don't know 99% of.

[Anonymous No.8152315]

>>8152308
Doesn't matter, you only need one theory, pic related.
You use it to model all of math. It comes in a failsafe set of axiom without and loopholes or detriments.