Upload
Login or register

mullacllahdoow

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
#49 - mullacllahdoow has deleted their comment.
User avatar
#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?
User avatar
#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
#52 - athale (05/14/2015) [-]
... math wizards are debating my comment
#26 - no sweat man, maths is my thing, unfair advantage  [+] (6 new replies) 05/14/2015 on Happiness 0
User avatar
#38 - tolikbro (05/14/2015) [-]
Set W=T
It just depends on whether you decide to do W*W or W+W.
In the first case, two women = T^2
In the second case, two women = 2T

Trouble squared or twice the trouble, all depends on how you want to combine the women.
User avatar
#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.
#49 - mullacllahdoow has deleted their comment.
User avatar
#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?
User avatar
#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
#52 - athale (05/14/2015) [-]
... math wizards are debating my comment
#23 - Also, you might want to check what your own source tells you b…  [+] (1 new reply) 05/14/2015 on Happiness +1
User avatar
#24 - icewraithking (05/14/2015) [-]
well shit.
#22 - ok, no... W*2/W = 2 W^2/W = W... a * denot…  [+] (9 new replies) 05/14/2015 on Happiness +1
#51 - athale (05/14/2015) [-]
i did not understand thanks for explaining
User avatar
#25 - icewraithking (05/14/2015) [-]
i swear im getting retarded everyday, i should stop surrounding myself with retarded people
User avatar
#26 - mullacllahdoow (05/14/2015) [-]
no sweat man, maths is my thing, unfair advantage
User avatar
#38 - tolikbro (05/14/2015) [-]
Set W=T
It just depends on whether you decide to do W*W or W+W.
In the first case, two women = T^2
In the second case, two women = 2T

Trouble squared or twice the trouble, all depends on how you want to combine the women.
User avatar
#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.
#49 - mullacllahdoow has deleted their comment.
User avatar
#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?
User avatar
#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
#52 - athale (05/14/2015) [-]
... math wizards are debating my comment
#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
#53 - anon (05/15/2015) [-]
Guys, no one said W=T
User avatar
#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/
User avatar
#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
User avatar
#24 - icewraithking (05/14/2015) [-]
well shit.
User avatar
#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.
#51 - athale (05/14/2015) [-]
i did not understand thanks for explaining
User avatar
#25 - icewraithking (05/14/2015) [-]
i swear im getting retarded everyday, i should stop surrounding myself with retarded people
User avatar
#26 - mullacllahdoow (05/14/2015) [-]
no sweat man, maths is my thing, unfair advantage
User avatar
#38 - tolikbro (05/14/2015) [-]
Set W=T
It just depends on whether you decide to do W*W or W+W.
In the first case, two women = T^2
In the second case, two women = 2T

Trouble squared or twice the trouble, all depends on how you want to combine the women.
User avatar
#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.
#49 - mullacllahdoow has deleted their comment.
User avatar
#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?
User avatar
#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
#52 - athale (05/14/2015) [-]
... math wizards are debating my comment
#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
User avatar
#13 - icewraithking (05/14/2015) [-]
you failed at math? you dont simplify it that way
User avatar
#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.
#53 - anon (05/15/2015) [-]
Guys, no one said W=T
User avatar
#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/
User avatar
#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
User avatar
#24 - icewraithking (05/14/2015) [-]
well shit.
User avatar
#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.
#51 - athale (05/14/2015) [-]
i did not understand thanks for explaining
User avatar
#25 - icewraithking (05/14/2015) [-]
i swear im getting retarded everyday, i should stop surrounding myself with retarded people
User avatar
#26 - mullacllahdoow (05/14/2015) [-]
no sweat man, maths is my thing, unfair advantage
User avatar
#38 - tolikbro (05/14/2015) [-]
Set W=T
It just depends on whether you decide to do W*W or W+W.
In the first case, two women = T^2
In the second case, two women = 2T

Trouble squared or twice the trouble, all depends on how you want to combine the women.
User avatar
#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.
#49 - mullacllahdoow has deleted their comment.
User avatar
#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?
User avatar
#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
#52 - athale (05/14/2015) [-]
... math wizards are debating my comment
#6 - athale (05/13/2015) [-]
im saying one woman is trouble but two woman isn't double trouble its trouble squared
#59 - Right... must be it.  [+] (1 new reply) 05/12/2015 on 500 words per minute +1
#193 - anon (08/30/2015) [-]
Bc you're all faggot ass bitches. Cunt.
#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?
User avatar
#59 - mullacllahdoow (05/12/2015) [-]
Right... must be it.
#193 - anon (08/30/2015) [-]
Bc you're all faggot ass bitches. Cunt.
#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 cat-flap. 05/09/2015 on Fuck yo stain nigga +3