[2011-Aug-23] Doin' Your Mom

Blame Quintushalls for this.

Moderator: Kimra

Re: Doin' Your Mom [August 23 2011]

Postby tefgara » Tue Aug 23, 2011 8:09 am

the joke may have originally been "i thought you were buying (condoms).
tefgara
 

Re: Doin' Your Mom [August 23 2011]

Postby Guest » Tue Aug 23, 2011 9:03 am

My mom and sister share a birthday (October 15, 1957/1990), so I used them as an easy example to check the math.

My sister was conceived when my mom was 32.25, so that statement will be true when my sister is 32.25, or January 15, 2023. On that day, my mom will be 65.25.

Mom's age = (2 * Sister's age) + .75

Mom's age = (2 * 32.25) + .75 = 64.5 + .75 = 65.25

Your math is correct.

However, you're glossing over a few points about human gestation. One, it's not something that can be counted to the day for every person, even disregarding premature births. Second, the nine months is counted from the first day of the mother's menstrual cycle, not the date of conception. So while the equation is true, there's only one day when your age is twice your child's age plus 0.75 years, that's probably not the exact age you were when they were conceived.
Guest
 

Re: Doin' Your Mom [August 23 2011]

Postby Sahan » Tue Aug 23, 2011 9:05 am

The votey definitely said 'Buying' when I first saw the comic, but now it says dying. I think Zach just realised he wrote the wrong word, and erased it in that time.
Destructicus wrote:Alt text:
"I wonder if chemists feel bad that they're always left out of these sorts of jokes."

Since when is chemistry not a science?
User avatar
Sahan
"I promise you no penis jokes."
 
Posts: 4367
Joined: Sat Jan 26, 2008 6:20 am
Location: Perth, Australia

Re: Doin' Your Mom [August 23 2011]

Postby Guest » Tue Aug 23, 2011 9:09 am

That math only works if you've remained in the same inertial frame of reference as your kid since the conception.
Guest
 

Re: Doin' Your Mom [August 23 2011]

Postby Sahan » Tue Aug 23, 2011 9:20 am

Guest wrote:That math only works if you've remained in the same inertial frame of reference as your kid since the conception.

The number of people of that generation who have travelled at speeds approaching the speed of light after having children certainly does put a spanner in Zach's equations.
Destructicus wrote:Alt text:
"I wonder if chemists feel bad that they're always left out of these sorts of jokes."

Since when is chemistry not a science?
User avatar
Sahan
"I promise you no penis jokes."
 
Posts: 4367
Joined: Sat Jan 26, 2008 6:20 am
Location: Perth, Australia

Re: Doin' Your Mom [August 23 2011]

Postby ReasonablyDoubtful » Tue Aug 23, 2011 11:02 am

You are exactly 20 years old when you conceive your child.

When they are exactly 20, you are 40.75, which is 2 * age + .75.
Time to piss off people with logic and facts!
ReasonablyDoubtful
 
Posts: 105
Joined: Sat Apr 30, 2011 6:57 am

Re: Doin' Your Mom [August 23 2011]

Postby Guest » Tue Aug 23, 2011 12:14 pm

"Boying" means purchasing boy prostitutes for family members to share. It's a great disappointment when one expects such a treat and is offered this instead.
Guest
 

Re: Doin' Your Mom [August 23 2011]

Postby xew » Tue Aug 23, 2011 12:36 pm

Of course is works out and the maths is correct.

The dad needs to know how old he will be when he needs to say that to his son, so :
* 'a' is the age the dad was when he procreated
* 'b' is the age the dad was then the baby was born so b = a + about 9 months (0.75)
b is also the age difference between dad and son, so the dad is always the age of his son + b

so, when the son reaches the age 'a', the dad is aged, a + b, or a + a + 0.75, or 2a + 0.75

All of this is of course useless, since the dad just needs to wait for the kid to get to the age 'a', so it doesn't matter if the pregnancy wasn't exactly 0.75.
xew
 

Re: Doin' Your Mom [August 23 2011]

Postby Guest » Tue Aug 23, 2011 1:10 pm

Eric wrote:The math is wrong. It is adding a time quantity with a unitless quantity. This makes no sense, unless we're working with a unit system where time is measured with a dimensionless unit. Does a standard system like that exist? If so, is the age given by the math reasonable?

I agree. Less about being pedantic about units, and more about joke clarity. Maybe I'm just dense this morning, but it took me way too long to realize the significance of + 0.75. Could have said "twice your kid's age plus 9 months" and it would have been accurate plus clear.
Guest
 

Re: Doin' Your Mom [August 23 2011]

Postby Andrew » Tue Aug 23, 2011 3:33 pm

Eric wrote:The math is wrong. It is adding a time quantity with a unitless quantity. This makes no sense, unless we're working with a unit system where time is measured with a dimensionless unit. Does a standard system like that exist? If so, is the age given by the math reasonable?


No, adding a dimensionless constant value (0.75 years = 9 months) has no effect on dimensional analysis. The age given by the equation will be a decimal value of years (i.e. 40.75 years = 40 years and 9 months).
Andrew
 

Re: Doin' Your Mom [August 23 2011]

Postby Andrew » Tue Aug 23, 2011 3:34 pm

Guest wrote:
Eric wrote:The math is wrong. It is adding a time quantity with a unitless quantity. This makes no sense, unless we're working with a unit system where time is measured with a dimensionless unit. Does a standard system like that exist? If so, is the age given by the math reasonable?

I agree. Less about being pedantic about units, and more about joke clarity. Maybe I'm just dense this morning, but it took me way too long to realize the significance of + 0.75. Could have said "twice your kid's age plus 9 months" and it would have been accurate plus clear.


I would hope that the average SMBC reader is sharp enough to realize quickly that 0.75 years = 9 months. If you have to explain the joke, it's no longer funny.
Andrew
 

Re: Doin' Your Mom [August 23 2011]

Postby Guest » Tue Aug 23, 2011 4:02 pm

The votey is a gif set to transparency so that it can neatly overly the site layout without a garish white square around it.
Image Image

Zach must have written The BU in "burn"
Image
then, realizing his mistake, went back with the erase tool and took care of it.
Image
He then wrote the correct text over top.
Image
When he shrunk it down and saved it as a gif the error was probably too small to notice and at least partially hidden by the checkered background that of his graphics program. Or it's possible he simply had a white layer beneath it the whole time which would have hidden the holes in his rendering even more.
Image
It would only be revealed against the black of the comic border.
Image
Guest
 

Re: Doin' Your Mom [August 23 2011]

Postby Quincy » Tue Aug 23, 2011 4:21 pm

Whatever, Columbo.
Quincy
 

Re: Doin' Your Mom [August 23 2011]

Postby Quintushalls » Tue Aug 23, 2011 5:16 pm

When I am curating Zach's exhibit in the MoCCA, I'm going to use this example.
Quintushalls
 
Posts: 120
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2010 2:32 pm

Re: Doin' Your Mom [August 23 2011]

Postby Eric » Tue Aug 23, 2011 5:50 pm

Andrew wrote:
Eric wrote:The math is wrong. It is adding a time quantity with a unitless quantity. This makes no sense, unless we're working with a unit system where time is measured with a dimensionless unit. Does a standard system like that exist? If so, is the age given by the math reasonable?


No, adding a dimensionless constant value (0.75 years = 9 months) has no effect on dimensional analysis. The age given by the equation will be a decimal value of years (i.e. 40.75 years = 40 years and 9 months).


That comment doesn't make a whole lot of sense. "0.75 years" is a) not dimensionless and b) not what the comic says. The comic says "0.75", which is dimensionless.
Eric
 

PreviousNext

Return to Latest Comic Discussion 3: Revenge of the Son of Latest Comic Discussion 2

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: AlixeTiir and 6 guests