Perhaps they meant to say (1+N) instead of just N – doubly naughty if one showing, triply so if both showing …

And if you can see only the outlines (think cold day) then of course N is imaginary, giving a complex (x+iy) result …

Doh, I’ve fallen for their mad premise !!

No. Without nipple exposure Britney’s score is zero, because zero multiplied by anything is zero.

Hah! How blindingly obvious.

Currently reading your book btw. Makes a great addition to my library, thanks a lot!

My last company used to sell recipe software for manufacturing companies and quite often the recipe for something (say a biscuit) could be reduced to an equation which drove the manufacturing process.

As this study cost £91,000 I doubt if it was intended as one of those other stupid equations you reference (and quite rightly ridicule).

On the other hand if you had not pointed this out on Saturday I would not have had the opportunity to enjoy Britneys busty substances.

I say we take it back anyway.

When working as a statistician, I concluded that no one with a realy good understanding of statistics could be trusted to do basic arithmetic. Could that also apply to mathematicians?

The hallmarks of professional excellence apart, I remember from my schooldays that producing plausible nonsense equations can be fun; though we always insisted on logical coherence. Could BadScience organise a competion to be won by the reader who, while observing the coherence rule, persuades a jounalist to publish the most absurd equation on April 1 next?

John

Yes precisely. In fact I believe that, as we speak Cambridge based boffins are hurriedly putting the finishing touches to an equation that will provide the most suitable equation for, errmm well… anything. As far as I understand it, the properties of this equation will include a complexity factor that can be set depending upon the intended publication. So that if the equation was only to appear in, say The Sun it would almost certainly be linear and have no more than 4 variables. Whilst if it was to appear in the Telegraph it may have nonlinearities and have anything up to 12 variables, some of which may even be correlated.

For many it might seem strange that it has taken so long for the mathematical eggheads to get around to developing such an equations. Particularly given its obvious utility in modern news reporting. However, it has proved highly illusive. Indeed, it wasn’t until a bored post doc came across prior work by Douglas Adams on the infinite improbability drive and used a prototype of the equation to generate the final equation we might not have made this significant move forward. Good work fellas.

But honestly, keep doing this I hate stupid equasions that dont work.

Are you suggesting a meta-meta-equation?

Hm.

I may have to do some calculations on that one.

The mathematician you refuse to name is someone who once ended a book review with a putdown of pseudo-intellectual cobblers so refeshingly blunt that it is still stuck in my memory twenty years later. Responding to an implausible claim about things the Inuit have words for, he wrote: “Well, the English language has a word that means: ‘I have listened to what you have to say and I understand the points you are trying to make, but I find your argument utterly unconvincing.’ That word is ‘bullshit’, and this book is full of it.” (See:
news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/special_report/1998/11/98/e-cyclopedia/226700.stm)
If you’re not to believe he’s been reduced to peddling the same product then this has to be a joke.

N) Arbritrary rating of newsworthiness, between 0 and 1;
S) Sexiness rating, again between 0 and 1; (perfect nipple size – .9; perfect bum wiggle – .7; perfect voice – .3;)
C) Number of statisticians working on the project
D) The amount paid out to the statisticians.
I) Column inches of media coverage / equivalent ad spend
L) Number of times corporate sponsors name appears
P) Expected revenue

These, of course, deal not with the formula itself:

é) number of symbols used and
F) number of functions.

Now we just have to work out how all these factors fit together, but let’s be honest, who cares?

[(N*S/P-D)^C] / [ L/I*é*F ]

No idea what kind of numbers this kicks out, or over what kind of range, but if we call it an “index” or a “quotient” then we needn’t worry too much about it. In fact, lets name ourselves a unit. A Gossard?

Pointing which out means I have, for the first time ever, managed to connect “chess” and “hooters”.

Result!