0563: "Fermirotica"

This forum is for the individual discussion thread that goes with each new comic.

Moderators: Moderators General, Prelates, Magistrates

kertrats
Posts: 36
Joined: Fri Nov 17, 2006 5:46 am UTC

Re: "Fermirotica" Discussion

Postby kertrats » Wed Apr 01, 2009 1:54 pm UTC

I wrote this paper up last night. I'd like comments if anyone has any.

User avatar
dennisw
Posts: 441
Joined: Wed Nov 05, 2008 9:09 am UTC
Location: Appearing pro se AND pro bono!
Contact:

Re: "Fermirotica" Discussion

Postby dennisw » Wed Apr 01, 2009 2:20 pm UTC

My oh my, what's an empiricist to do?

Observation usually affects the experiment. In this case, it also affects the observer.*

* Yes, like that, but also may result in the removal of the observer to a place that only serves bologna sandwiches and may only provide "experiments" outside the observer's specialty.
Try the Printifier for xkcd. You can now scale the comic between 50 and 150%.

I find these very useful: Common Errors in English Usage (web site) and Eats, Shoots & Leaves (book). You may, too.

e pluribus unum
Unleash unlicensed ungulates!

User avatar
Kisama
Posts: 137
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 5:52 am UTC
Location: (0, 0, 0)

Re: "Fermirotica" Discussion

Postby Kisama » Wed Apr 01, 2009 2:24 pm UTC

kertrats wrote:I wrote this paper up last night. I'd like comments if anyone has any.

I like it :)

Very minor (hopefully constructive) criticisms:
Some of your reference numbers seem to be off, likely due to the insertion of [2] or [3] after writing the rest of the paper.
Equation(s) should probably be numbered too.

I was taught that table captions/labels should be positioned above the table, but I don't know if that's a widely accepted convention or just what my faculty wanted...
cd880b726e0a0dbd4237f10d15da46f4

Lathe
Posts: 47
Joined: Fri Nov 30, 2007 8:36 pm UTC

Re: "Fermirotica" Discussion

Postby Lathe » Wed Apr 01, 2009 2:46 pm UTC

Of course, the problem with any equation is that the results are only as good as the data you put into it.

Based on studies, X_f should be 52 events/year and X_d averages 15 minutes if you use USA averages (not as optimistic as the e.g. numbers in the comic :wink: ). Use more regionally accurate numbers if available.

nihil
Posts: 17
Joined: Fri Mar 14, 2008 3:26 pm UTC
Location: São Paulo, SP. Brazil.
Contact:

Re: "Fermirotica" Discussion

Postby nihil » Wed Apr 01, 2009 2:55 pm UTC

Data for:
São Paulo, SP. Brazil. Moema District:

Pd = 7,665 /km² Source: Pt. Wikipedia.
Xf = 145/year. Source: http://www.diariopopular.com.br/02_06_0 ... vabem.html
Xd = 21 min Source: http://www.diariopopular.com.br/02_06_0 ... vabem.html

r = 119.77 m.

batquux
Posts: 4
Joined: Mon Jun 09, 2008 1:24 pm UTC

Re: "Fermirotica" Discussion

Postby batquux » Wed Apr 01, 2009 3:09 pm UTC

Just for kicks, you can draw a radius around yourself to see where the most likely locations are:
http://www.freemaptools.com/radius-around-point.htm

User avatar
neoliminal
Posts: 626
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2009 6:39 pm UTC

This thing is broken.

Postby neoliminal » Wed Apr 01, 2009 3:14 pm UTC

I'm looking at an orgy right now and it's WAY out of whack with the projected numbers. Maybe this is an anomaly but... what the hell am I posting for when I have these two girls 'all up 'pons'?? I don't think I'll even submit this.
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B0073YYXRC
Read My Book. Cost less than coffee. Will probably keep you awake longer.
[hint, scary!]

Mazzula
Posts: 54
Joined: Mon Sep 08, 2008 5:22 pm UTC

Re: "Fermirotica" Discussion

Postby Mazzula » Wed Apr 01, 2009 3:54 pm UTC

MiserereNobisAlex wrote:Close, but there needs to be a Dirac delta function, whose input is 0 if you are in a fraternity and 1 otherwise, in the expression.

:twisted: That would be a Kronecker delta, whose output is 0 or 1. The value of the Dirac delta is never 1. Ruined the joke for me.

Savant Deviance
Posts: 4
Joined: Mon Oct 20, 2008 5:18 pm UTC

Re: "Fermirotica" Discussion

Postby Savant Deviance » Wed Apr 01, 2009 4:02 pm UTC

Results for Ball State University, with 17000 students on campus at a time and with campus being ~1 mile and with the assumption that we are having sex 112 times a year (according to a Kinsley report...)

Right now, someone within 123.21 m of me is probably having sex. On the other hand, my roommate is definitely having sex within 2.1 m of me.

User avatar
Red Hal
Magically Delicious
Posts: 1445
Joined: Wed Nov 28, 2007 2:42 pm UTC

Re: "Fermirotica" Discussion

Postby Red Hal » Wed Apr 01, 2009 4:06 pm UTC

I liked the example calculation link at the top of the page. That explained it all for me.
Lost Greatest Silent Baby X Y Z. "There is no one who loves pain itself, who seeks after it and wants to have it, simply because it is pain..."

dln385
Posts: 1
Joined: Tue Jan 13, 2009 2:28 am UTC

Re: "Fermirotica" Discussion

Postby dln385 » Wed Apr 01, 2009 4:44 pm UTC

This comic finds the distance at which, on average, one couple within that distance from you is having sex. I want to know what the average distance from you to the nearest couple having sex is.

I will first verify that the comic's equation is correct, then take my best shot at answering my question.

First re-arrange the equation to read as follows: Xf*Xd*Pd*pi*r2 = 2
Note that Xf*Xd is the probability that any one person is having sex.
Note that Xf*Xd*Pd is the percentage (in decimal form) of people having sex in one square mile.
Note that Xf*Xd*Pd*pi*r2 is the average number of people having sex in a circle of radius r.
We set this last value equal to 2 because we assume it takes two to tango.
We have now discovered that, on average, there will be one couple having sex within a circle of radius r.

So, the comic is correct. Now to answer my question:

Using statistical calculus, we find that the average radius among all the points in a circle of radius r is 2r/3.
Therefore, the average distance from you to the nearest couple having sex is 2r/3.
If r=150m, then this would be 100m.

How does that math look. Do others agree?
I really can't figure out if that value is actually correct. Just because I found the average distance of the average area of, on average, one couple, doesn't mean that I found the average distance from you to the nearest couple having sex, does it?

Folx
Posts: 16
Joined: Thu Jan 22, 2009 7:33 pm UTC

Re: "Fermirotica" Discussion

Postby Folx » Wed Apr 01, 2009 4:48 pm UTC

Just because I found the average distance of the average area of, on average, one couple, doesn't mean that I found the average distance from you to the nearest couple having sex, does it?
... yes, it does.
Only by invoking my name do I exist.

User avatar
Khaba
Posts: 21
Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2007 12:10 am UTC

Re: "Fermirotica" Discussion

Postby Khaba » Wed Apr 01, 2009 4:57 pm UTC

kertrats wrote:I wrote this paper up last night. I'd like comments if anyone has any.

I think it's too Basically Decent that your Sexual Frequency table does not include an entry for <18 years old. Doubtless this is due to your sources. Perhaps you could try 4chan for the relevant data?

nihil
Posts: 17
Joined: Fri Mar 14, 2008 3:26 pm UTC
Location: São Paulo, SP. Brazil.
Contact:

Re: "Fermirotica" Discussion

Postby nihil » Wed Apr 01, 2009 5:08 pm UTC

dln385 wrote:This comic finds the distance at which, on average, one couple within that distance from you is having sex. I want to know what the average distance from you to the nearest couple having sex is.

I will first verify that the comic's equation is correct, then take my best shot at answering my question.

First re-arrange the equation to read as follows: Xf*Xd*Pd*pi*r2 = 2
Note that Xf*Xd is the probability that any one person is having sex.
Note that Xf*Xd*Pd is the percentage (in decimal form) of people having sex in one square mile.
Note that Xf*Xd*Pd*pi*r2 is the average number of people having sex in a circle of radius r.
We set this last value equal to 2 because we assume it takes two to tango.
We have now discovered that, on average, there will be one couple having sex within a circle of radius r.

So, the comic is correct. Now to answer my question:

Using statistical calculus, we find that the average radius among all the points in a circle of radius r is 2r/3.
Therefore, the average distance from you to the nearest couple having sex is 2r/3.
If r=150m, then this would be 100m.

How does that math look. Do others agree?
I really can't figure out if that value is actually correct. Just because I found the average distance of the average area of, on average, one couple, doesn't mean that I found the average distance from you to the nearest couple having sex, does it?


If we assume one to tango there should be a 1 probability every computer connected to the Internet in a properly closed room. Which means the minimum radius is just the distance between you and that computer. :P

User avatar
Pisthetairos
Posts: 12
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 6:08 pm UTC

Re: "Fermirotica" Discussion

Postby Pisthetairos » Wed Apr 01, 2009 5:19 pm UTC

Well, I for one don't get laid when my mom is in town. So, I guess it DOES change the probabilities.

mikek365
Posts: 2
Joined: Wed Mar 18, 2009 4:27 pm UTC

Re: "Fermirotica" Discussion

Postby mikek365 » Wed Apr 01, 2009 5:47 pm UTC

QuantumNightmare wrote:I'm curious where the numbers in the comic came from. And does the average frequency of 80/year include multiple rounds per night, or 80 unique days?




80/yr???? You're obviously not married, Randall. Enjoy it while you get it. :(

User avatar
Katieesq
Posts: 30
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2009 9:40 pm UTC

Re: "Fermirotica" Discussion

Postby Katieesq » Wed Apr 01, 2009 5:48 pm UTC

80 times per year? I think I'm a couple standard deviations away from that mean.

DemiImp
Posts: 7
Joined: Thu Mar 12, 2009 11:14 pm UTC

Re: "Fermirotica" Discussion

Postby DemiImp » Wed Apr 01, 2009 6:00 pm UTC

My only issue with this equation is its converting minutes to years and not years to minutes, which I beleive would affect the outcome of the numbers.


http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe ... 30+minutes <- googles answer (I believe its automatically converting years to minutes here)

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe ... 7764+years <- with 30 minutes converted to years

flibbertigibbit
Posts: 1
Joined: Wed Apr 01, 2009 5:53 pm UTC

Re: "Fermirotica" Discussion

Postby flibbertigibbit » Wed Apr 01, 2009 6:17 pm UTC

Using suspect data and noting that Vatican City has the seventh highest population density in the world (by country), I have calculated that on average, someone is having sex within about 400 meters of you, if you happen to be located within Vatican City.

Pd = 2090.91 people/square mile (CIA World Factbook, 2006)
Xf = 106/year (Durex Survey of frequency of sex per year: Italy 2005)
Xd = 30 minutes (?)

I lament that I could not find data on the frequency of sex per year in Vatican City itself, and I am not at all convinced that 30 minutes is a very precise number, so my final result only has one significant digit. The distance would be reduced if Xd actually is more precise than I'm assuming. But what am I thinking. This is only an estimate.

Also, my calculation does not take into account the greater/lesser likelihood of sex in a country filled with priests.

1977chevy
Posts: 3
Joined: Wed Apr 01, 2009 6:27 pm UTC

Re: "Fermirotica" Discussion

Postby 1977chevy » Wed Apr 01, 2009 6:31 pm UTC

Am I wrong to thing the units are actually "people/mi^2" and "occurrences/year", leading to final units of "mi/(sqrt(people occurances))"?

User avatar
neoliminal
Posts: 626
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2009 6:39 pm UTC

Re: "Fermirotica" Discussion

Postby neoliminal » Wed Apr 01, 2009 6:46 pm UTC

Katieesq wrote:80 times per year? I think I'm a couple standard deviations away from that mean.


Which way?
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B0073YYXRC
Read My Book. Cost less than coffee. Will probably keep you awake longer.
[hint, scary!]

KyleOwens
Posts: 73
Joined: Thu Oct 23, 2008 4:21 am UTC

Re: "Fermirotica" Discussion

Postby KyleOwens » Wed Apr 01, 2009 6:56 pm UTC

1977chevy wrote:Am I wrong to thing the units are actually "people/mi^2" and "occurrences/year", leading to final units of "mi/(sqrt(people occurances))"?


dont forget that the 2 has units of people/occurance

DWarrior
Posts: 8
Joined: Tue Jun 17, 2008 4:23 pm UTC

Re: "Fermirotica" Discussion

Postby DWarrior » Wed Apr 01, 2009 7:02 pm UTC

800 feet for me, assuming xkcd's X_f and X_d and using wiki for local population density.

DemiImp
Posts: 7
Joined: Thu Mar 12, 2009 11:14 pm UTC

Re: "Fermirotica" Discussion

Postby DemiImp » Wed Apr 01, 2009 7:46 pm UTC

DemiImp wrote:My only issue with this equation is its converting minutes to years and not years to minutes, which I beleive would affect the outcome of the numbers.


http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe ... 30+minutes <- googles answer (I believe its automatically converting years to minutes here)

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe ... 7764+years <- with 30 minutes converted to years

Never mind, I found my error. it wouldnt be 80 times per minute.

User avatar
MarcyMarc
Posts: 28
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2009 7:26 pm UTC
Location: New Jersey
Contact:

Re: "Fermirotica" Discussion

Postby MarcyMarc » Wed Apr 01, 2009 7:49 pm UTC

Do this calculation while having sex. Does it equal zero? No. I win.

Afterthought:
Do this calculation while having sex.
That might be kind of tricky.

Afterafterthought: It takes two to tango but one to do the twist if you know what I mean. And you'll still have one hand free to do the calculation.
marcYɔɹɐɯ

Image

Aradae
Posts: 357
Joined: Mon Aug 20, 2007 5:59 pm UTC

Re: "Fermirotica" Discussion

Postby Aradae » Wed Apr 01, 2009 7:58 pm UTC

If you ever attend a game in the Beaver Stadium which has a seating capacity of 107282 and an area of approximately 22500 square meters then, with the average American's rate of sex (about 2 - 3 per week so we'll say it's about 130 a year) and assuming that anyone having sex in a stadium will only do so for five minutes a time then someone is having sex within 10 meters of you

A more disturbing though is the radius at which, on average, someone is maturbating.
Guys guys guys! I found Russel's teapot! . . . nevermind, it was just Jesus flying to Mars again.

St_Fred
Posts: 14
Joined: Wed Apr 01, 2009 7:56 am UTC

Re: "Fermirotica" Discussion

Postby St_Fred » Wed Apr 01, 2009 8:07 pm UTC

Sk25 wrote:
St_Fred wrote:I am no math/physics major, but wouldn't the whole "quantum uncertainty/Schrödinger's cat" issue affect any statistical voyeurism?


Well, to go with your reasoning yes, we are just estimating the probability, but until we see someone actually having sex they may or may not have it. However, I refute the applicability of quantum mechanics to sex. Have you ever tried going with a girl who is as wide as a few subatomic particles?

Nope, I prefer my girls with a bit of meat :) Also, Ixidor is a doof :P

St_Fred
Posts: 14
Joined: Wed Apr 01, 2009 7:56 am UTC

Re: "Fermirotica" Discussion

Postby St_Fred » Wed Apr 01, 2009 8:08 pm UTC

sabik wrote:
Sk25 wrote:
St_Fred wrote:I am no math/physics major, but wouldn't the whole "quantum uncertainty/Schrödinger's cat" issue affect any statistical voyeurism?


Well, to go with your reasoning yes, we are just estimating the probability, but until we see someone actually having sex they may or may not have it. However, I refute the applicability of quantum mechanics to sex. Have you ever tried going with a girl who is as wide as a few subatomic particles?


The other problem is that it tends to end up with the girl a little bit pregnant.

η

Ah but with quantum uncertainty, the girl isn't pregnant until you test :)

User avatar
Brooklynxman
Because I'm Awesome
Posts: 609
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 4:27 pm UTC
Location: Here
Contact:

Re: "Fermirotica" Discussion

Postby Brooklynxman » Wed Apr 01, 2009 8:20 pm UTC

If your mom is in town, gravity increases by a factor of 10. Towards her.

</lameyourmomjoke>

Hehe, yeah, this was great.
We figure out what all this means, then do something large and violent

The thing about changing the world...once you do it the world's all different.

I'm Angel. I beat the bad guys.

Spoiler:
Image

User avatar
dennisw
Posts: 441
Joined: Wed Nov 05, 2008 9:09 am UTC
Location: Appearing pro se AND pro bono!
Contact:

Re: "Fermirotica" Discussion

Postby dennisw » Wed Apr 01, 2009 9:05 pm UTC

dln385 wrote:This comic finds the distance at which, on average, one couple within that distance from you is having sex. I want to know what the average distance from you to the nearest couple having sex is.

I will first verify that the comic's equation is correct, then take my best shot at answering my question.

First re-arrange the equation to read as follows: Xf*Xd*Pd*pi*r2 = 2
Note that Xf*Xd is the probability that any one person is having sex.
Note that Xf*Xd*Pd is the percentage (in decimal form) of people having sex in one square mile.
Note that Xf*Xd*Pd*pi*r2 is the average number of people having sex in a circle of radius r.
We set this last value equal to 2 because we assume it takes two to tango.
We have now discovered that, on average, there will be one couple having sex within a circle of radius r.

So, the comic is correct. Now to answer my question:

Using statistical calculus, we find that the average radius among all the points in a circle of radius r is 2r/3.
Therefore, the average distance from you to the nearest couple having sex is 2r/3.
If r=150m, then this would be 100m.

How does that math look. Do others agree?
I really can't figure out if that value is actually correct. Just because I found the average distance of the average area of, on average, one couple, doesn't mean that I found the average distance from you to the nearest couple having sex, does it?

For precise location, you have to take into account how energetic the particlesparticipants are.

I call Heisenberg on you.
Try the Printifier for xkcd. You can now scale the comic between 50 and 150%.

I find these very useful: Common Errors in English Usage (web site) and Eats, Shoots & Leaves (book). You may, too.

e pluribus unum
Unleash unlicensed ungulates!

tentative
Posts: 3
Joined: Wed Apr 01, 2009 7:55 pm UTC

Re: "Fermirotica" Discussion

Postby tentative » Wed Apr 01, 2009 9:10 pm UTC

Am I the first to point out that the calculation is dead wrong?
I'll present my case in logical order, but there's a short version in the end.

The 3rd dimension problem has been pointed out, so in the following I'm taking the formula to mean the horizontal distance.

1. Pd, the average number of people per area, is not useful, because people tend to aggregate.
This is best seen in high residential buildings, where the average horizontal distance is much smaller than calculated.
Taking this to the extreme, if everybody lived in high building (much higher than wide) which are very far-between (much much further-between than high),
the actual distance would be much smaller than suggested by the low population density.

2. Let's look at the average fraction of time an average person is sexually active (it's not Xf*Xd, see next comment).
The logic of the previous comment applies here too, because people tend to have sex at similar times.
Suppose everybody had sex half of the time (OUCH! if you're a guy; WOW! if you're a girl), but only at night.
The average distance would be very high, because half the time the closest lovemaking happens in a different time zone,
much higher than suggested by all this much sex.

3. Xf and Xd could be correlated. Suppose sex lasted longer for people who were having it more frequently.
In numbers, let's say half the people were having 45 minutes of sex every day, and the other half 15 minutes every 3 days.
Then Xf*Xd would be 30mins*2/3days=1.389%,
while the actual average fraction of time an average person was having sex would be (45mins*1/1day + 15mins*1/3days)/2 = 1.736%, which is 25% more.

4. Also, distance and frequency could be correlated. In order to calculate the average density of sexual activity, we can't just multiply Pd by Xf*Xd.
Suppose people were evenly distributed in town, and everyone was having the same length sex,
evenly spaced through the day, week and year (so that comments 1, 2 and 3 don't apply).
Still, more sexually active people could be aggregated. If, for example, sex was mostly limited to a few far-between neighborhoods, we're back with the example of comment 1.

So:

We can't multiply Xf by Xd to get the average fraction of time spent having sex.
Even if we could, we can't multiply that by Pd to get the average density of sexual activity.
Even if we could, that would give us the average value for 2/pi*r^2 over all people and times.
As comments 1 and 2 show, solving that for r does not give the average r over all people and times.

Really, Randall, I've come to expect more from you :P

AtRandom
Posts: 1
Joined: Wed Apr 01, 2009 8:57 pm UTC

Re: "Fermirotica" Discussion

Postby AtRandom » Wed Apr 01, 2009 9:39 pm UTC

dln385 wrote:This comic finds the distance at which, on average, one couple within that distance from you is having sex. I want to know what the average distance from you to the nearest couple having sex is.

Actually, there is a slight subtelty here: The distance r in the comic is such that, on average, 1 person whithin this distance is having sex. This is what you prove. However, this is different from the average distance from you to the nearest person having sex.

And I would think it is more interesting to know the average minimum distance. Here is the formula I got: (making the same implicit dubious assumptions as in the comic)
[math]d=\sqrt{\frac{1}{2P_d X_fX_d}}[/math]
Hence [imath]d=\frac{\sqrt{\pi}}{2}r\simeq 0.887 r[/imath], and for instance r=150m in the comic gives d=133m for the average minimal distance.

How did I derive this formula? (for mathematically inclined) I assumed people (say, men) are distributed according to a two-dimensional Poisson point process with density [imath]\lambda=\frac{1}{2}P_dX_fX_d[/imath]. This is how "uniformly distributed" would translate in the most usual way. Then the number [imath]N_r[/imath] of people inside a circle of radius [imath]r[/imath] is a Poisson random variable with parameter [imath]\lambda\pi r^2[/imath], so that the distance [imath]D[/imath] to the nearest male having sex satisfies [imath]P(D>r)=P(N_r=0)=e^{-\lambda \pi r^2}[/imath]. We deduce the expected value [math]d=E[D]=\int_0^\infty P(D>r) dr=\int_0^\infty e^{-\lambda\pi r^2} dr=\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{\frac{1}{\lambda}}=\sqrt{\frac{1}{2P_dX_fX_d}}[/math]

I hope someone found this interesting...

User avatar
tehol
Posts: 38
Joined: Mon Mar 23, 2009 11:25 pm UTC

Re: "Fermirotica" Discussion

Postby tehol » Wed Apr 01, 2009 9:43 pm UTC

pgn674 wrote:If I recall correctly, Google handles unicorn horns and light years in a tablespoon, too.

I .... dont get it.

April fools?
ACF Forum home--Lether lol, CN FTW Goodbye, O fiendish mind-thief Seems I can't escape
- tehol OR tehol this link kills spam?

musthavebeenmykarma
Posts: 42
Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2007 6:02 am UTC

Re: "Fermirotica" Discussion

Postby musthavebeenmykarma » Wed Apr 01, 2009 10:01 pm UTC

X sub F is clearly directly proportional to hotness and an experience constant, so you could also predict how sexy the sex is with this equation.
Newpages: 250/2,3?? (~10%}

Blitz for it...

SocialSceneRepairman
Posts: 199
Joined: Sat May 24, 2008 4:17 am UTC

Re: "Fermirotica" Discussion

Postby SocialSceneRepairman » Wed Apr 01, 2009 10:21 pm UTC

A unicorn has one horn. Therefore, the calculator converts that to "one." So one acre in teaspoons per lightyear.

A teaspoon per lightyear is an area that, times a lightyear, would produce a volume of a teaspoon, just like a square meter produces a liter per millimeter.

Obviously, this is a very small area, so there are many in an acre. This tells you how many.

1977chevy
Posts: 3
Joined: Wed Apr 01, 2009 6:27 pm UTC

Re: "Fermirotica" Discussion

Postby 1977chevy » Thu Apr 02, 2009 12:28 am UTC

KyleOwens wrote:
1977chevy wrote:Am I wrong to thing the units are actually "people/mi^2" and "occurrences/year", leading to final units of "mi/(sqrt(people occurances))"?


dont forget that the 2 has units of people/occurance


Impossible, since I didn't know that :) - although I suppose I could forget it now. I'll remain on guard against this possibility.

User avatar
TheSkyMovesSideways
Posts: 589
Joined: Thu Oct 02, 2008 8:36 am UTC
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: "Fermirotica" Discussion

Postby TheSkyMovesSideways » Thu Apr 02, 2009 12:40 am UTC

AtRandom wrote:I hope someone found this interesting...

I did! :D

I'd wondered about this, and thought that Randall's method of taking the city area per lovemaking occurrence would likely produce an inaccurate result. I was thinking some kind of 2D Poisson would be more applicable, but have only ever dealt with regular Poisson, so didn't know if this was possible. And now I find it is. Yay!
I had all kinds of plans in case of a zombie attack.
I just figured I'd be on the other side.
~ASW

Faranya
Posts: 259
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2008 3:10 am UTC

Re: "Fermirotica" Discussion

Postby Faranya » Thu Apr 02, 2009 2:19 am UTC

Apparently there is someone having sex within 359.8 m. However, since I am currently located in a university residence, at night, I get the feeling that that person is much, much closer than that.
Image

guest551
Posts: 1
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 3:09 am UTC

Re: "Fermirotica" Discussion

Postby guest551 » Thu Apr 02, 2009 3:12 am UTC

Just wondering. If you get rid of the 2 before the square root and just supplement the appropriate numbers you could get the theoretical distance of a person masturbating near you.

KingChochach0
Posts: 3
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 2:44 am UTC

Re: "Fermirotica" Discussion

Postby KingChochach0 » Thu Apr 02, 2009 3:18 am UTC

I got:
745.243191 meters


Return to “Individual XKCD Comic Threads”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google Feedfetcher, mscha, TheMinim and 24 guests