mullacllahdoow
Rank #8444 on Comments
Level 230 Comments: Ambassador Of Lulz Offline
Send mail to mullacllahdoow Block mullacllahdoow Invite mullacllahdoow to be your friend Last status update:  

 
Gender:  male 
Age:  25 
Date Signed Up:  7/21/2011 
Last Login:  7/21/2016 
FunnyJunk Career Stats  
Comment Ranking:  #8444 
Highest Content Rank:  #6109 
Highest Comment Rank:  #2732 
Content Thumbs:  26 total, 38 , 12 
Comment Thumbs:  3610 total, 3737 , 127 
Content Level Progress:  42.37% (25/59) Level 0 Content: Untouched account → Level 1 Content: New Here 
Comment Level Progress:  92% (92/100) Level 230 Comments: Ambassador Of Lulz → Level 231 Comments: Ambassador Of Lulz 
Subscribers:  0 
Content Views:  3840 
Times Content Favorited:  1 times 
Total Comments Made:  572 
FJ Points:  3114 
latest user's comments
#40  and W*2 = W+W... what I said was for W*2 = W^2 that requir… [+] (4 new replies)  05/14/2015 on Happiness  +2 
#48 
racetothebottom (05/14/2015) [] jesus christ you're all missing the point W is not equal to T W and T are related, but that doesn't mean they're equal like please point out where the first comment said W=T W*x = T^x is that so difficult to understand? #50 
mullacllahdoow (05/14/2015) [] Where he said "a woman is trouble" I was literally just making a "funny" (clearly not funny) observation from a mathematical standpoint. I didn't mean to start a debate on the difference between linear and exponential relationships and how to properly define said relationship. I understood what he was getting at  
#26  no sweat man, maths is my thing, unfair advantage [+] (6 new replies)  05/14/2015 on Happiness  0 
#40 
mullacllahdoow (05/14/2015) [] and W*2 = W+W... what I said was for W*2 = W^2 that requires W=2 and hence T=2 again, is was supposed to be a joke... but since everyone is so insistant that I'm wrong. for a relationship for increasing women linearly to result in exponential growth of trouble you'd require: let T = trouble and let T=x i.e. a large number representing trouble caused by 1 woman. then: T = x^W i.e. for 2 women: T = x^2 for 3 women T= x^3 etc... The original post said W*2 (i.e. W+W) = T^2. Not mathematically correct if T=W. #48 
racetothebottom (05/14/2015) [] jesus christ you're all missing the point W is not equal to T W and T are related, but that doesn't mean they're equal like please point out where the first comment said W=T W*x = T^x is that so difficult to understand? #50 
mullacllahdoow (05/14/2015) [] Where he said "a woman is trouble" I was literally just making a "funny" (clearly not funny) observation from a mathematical standpoint. I didn't mean to start a debate on the difference between linear and exponential relationships and how to properly define said relationship. I understood what he was getting at  
#23  Also, you might want to check what your own source tells you b… [+] (1 new reply)  05/14/2015 on Happiness  +1 
 
#22  ok, no... W*2/W = 2 W^2/W = W... a * denot… [+] (9 new replies)  05/14/2015 on Happiness  +1 
#25 
icewraithking (05/14/2015) [] i swear im getting retarded everyday, i should stop surrounding myself with retarded people #40 
mullacllahdoow (05/14/2015) [] and W*2 = W+W... what I said was for W*2 = W^2 that requires W=2 and hence T=2 again, is was supposed to be a joke... but since everyone is so insistant that I'm wrong. for a relationship for increasing women linearly to result in exponential growth of trouble you'd require: let T = trouble and let T=x i.e. a large number representing trouble caused by 1 woman. then: T = x^W i.e. for 2 women: T = x^2 for 3 women T= x^3 etc... The original post said W*2 (i.e. W+W) = T^2. Not mathematically correct if T=W. #48 
racetothebottom (05/14/2015) [] jesus christ you're all missing the point W is not equal to T W and T are related, but that doesn't mean they're equal like please point out where the first comment said W=T W*x = T^x is that so difficult to understand? #50 
mullacllahdoow (05/14/2015) [] Where he said "a woman is trouble" I was literally just making a "funny" (clearly not funny) observation from a mathematical standpoint. I didn't mean to start a debate on the difference between linear and exponential relationships and how to properly define said relationship. I understood what he was getting at  
#14  T^2 = T * T if T = W and T^2 = W*2 then W*2 … [+] (14 new replies)  05/14/2015 on Happiness  +1 
#19 
icewraithking (05/14/2015) [] you divided wrong, its ((w*2)/w)=w , also here is a nifty site to do that, www.wolframalpha.com/ #23 
mullacllahdoow (05/14/2015) [] Also, you might want to check what your own source tells you before you tell me I'm wrong www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=%28w*2%29%2Fw #22 
mullacllahdoow (05/14/2015) [] ok, no... W*2/W = 2 W^2/W = W... a * denotes multiply. Source. I have a Maths degree. also... my reply was (clearly a bad) attempt at humour. not intended to be analysed. #25 
icewraithking (05/14/2015) [] i swear im getting retarded everyday, i should stop surrounding myself with retarded people #40 
mullacllahdoow (05/14/2015) [] and W*2 = W+W... what I said was for W*2 = W^2 that requires W=2 and hence T=2 again, is was supposed to be a joke... but since everyone is so insistant that I'm wrong. for a relationship for increasing women linearly to result in exponential growth of trouble you'd require: let T = trouble and let T=x i.e. a large number representing trouble caused by 1 woman. then: T = x^W i.e. for 2 women: T = x^2 for 3 women T= x^3 etc... The original post said W*2 (i.e. W+W) = T^2. Not mathematically correct if T=W. #48 
racetothebottom (05/14/2015) [] jesus christ you're all missing the point W is not equal to T W and T are related, but that doesn't mean they're equal like please point out where the first comment said W=T W*x = T^x is that so difficult to understand? #50 
mullacllahdoow (05/14/2015) [] Where he said "a woman is trouble" I was literally just making a "funny" (clearly not funny) observation from a mathematical standpoint. I didn't mean to start a debate on the difference between linear and exponential relationships and how to properly define said relationship. I understood what he was getting at  
#5  I don't see what you're trying to say... if W=T and W*2 = T^2 … [+] (17 new replies)  05/13/2015 on Happiness  8 
#14 
mullacllahdoow (05/14/2015) [] T^2 = T * T if T = W and T^2 = W*2 then W*2 = T * T at this point it's obvious that W=T=2 but: Since W = T we can sub T for W on the right hand side giving W*2 = W*W divide through by W to get 2 = W as I stated. #19 
icewraithking (05/14/2015) [] you divided wrong, its ((w*2)/w)=w , also here is a nifty site to do that, www.wolframalpha.com/ #23 
mullacllahdoow (05/14/2015) [] Also, you might want to check what your own source tells you before you tell me I'm wrong www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=%28w*2%29%2Fw #22 
mullacllahdoow (05/14/2015) [] ok, no... W*2/W = 2 W^2/W = W... a * denotes multiply. Source. I have a Maths degree. also... my reply was (clearly a bad) attempt at humour. not intended to be analysed. #25 
icewraithking (05/14/2015) [] i swear im getting retarded everyday, i should stop surrounding myself with retarded people #40 
mullacllahdoow (05/14/2015) [] and W*2 = W+W... what I said was for W*2 = W^2 that requires W=2 and hence T=2 again, is was supposed to be a joke... but since everyone is so insistant that I'm wrong. for a relationship for increasing women linearly to result in exponential growth of trouble you'd require: let T = trouble and let T=x i.e. a large number representing trouble caused by 1 woman. then: T = x^W i.e. for 2 women: T = x^2 for 3 women T= x^3 etc... The original post said W*2 (i.e. W+W) = T^2. Not mathematically correct if T=W. #48 
racetothebottom (05/14/2015) [] jesus christ you're all missing the point W is not equal to T W and T are related, but that doesn't mean they're equal like please point out where the first comment said W=T W*x = T^x is that so difficult to understand? #50 
mullacllahdoow (05/14/2015) [] Where he said "a woman is trouble" I was literally just making a "funny" (clearly not funny) observation from a mathematical standpoint. I didn't mean to start a debate on the difference between linear and exponential relationships and how to properly define said relationship. I understood what he was getting at  
#59  Right... must be it. [+] (1 new reply)  05/12/2015 on 500 words per minute  +1 
 
#49  In my last job, we tried Spritzing to read technical documents… [+] (3 new replies)  05/12/2015 on 500 words per minute  +3 
#55 
anon (05/12/2015) [] Soooo.... what you're telling me is that you were all too dumb to use Spritzing?  
#12  Uh huh, I also heard there is a shorter version where we never…  05/11/2015 on Choices, choices  0 
#10  hydrophobic carpet, wine leaves through the catflap.  05/09/2015 on Fuck yo stain nigga  +3 