jesus8urbaby:
a few links were added to my "hope for relationships" chain http://twitter.com/redgoober4life/statuses/952323541
jesus8urbaby:
:P
rareedgedesigner:
aww, sweetie
jesus8urbaby:
:/
rareedgedesigner:
your hope for relationships chain
rareedgedesigner:
how does that work?
rareedgedesigner:
you take a link off everything you hear about something that makes you LOSE hope?
rareedgedesigner:
then you said you took two off
rareedgedesigner:
did we make you lose hope twice ?
rareedgedesigner:
;)
jesus8urbaby:
NO!
rareedgedesigner:
so confrused!
jesus8urbaby:
i'll put links ON
rareedgedesigner:
oh
rareedgedesigner:
that was a tweet from LAST WEEK
jesus8urbaby:
if losing hope is -links then regaining hope is +links
jesus8urbaby:
that's the point
jesus8urbaby:
the "losing hope in relationships" chain isn't the 'hope in relationships chain'
jesus8urbaby:
now i'm confused
jesus8urbaby:
i'll do a differential equation
rareedgedesigner:
hahaha
rareedgedesigner:
you kill me :D
rareedgedesigner:
loves it
jesus8urbaby:
let HOPE be my hope in relationships and INSTANCE be the instances of relationship information attainment. change in hope/change in instances = dHOPE/dINSTANCE which is HOPE so if we separate variables (assuming that hope and instance are linearly related...but there's really only one variable), we get hope = e^instance. so for a negative instance, hope is very small. for many negative instances, hope approaches zero. for a positive instance, hope increases exponentially
jesus8urbaby:
this may or many not be a good model
jesus8urbaby:
maybe there are cofactors to HOPE. like...alcohol
jesus8urbaby:
so then we'd get hope = e^instance*alcohol. so if alcohol is zero, hope is constant (=1)
jesus8urbaby:
that's wrong
jesus8urbaby:
for some people
jesus8urbaby:
we're forgetting to solve for the initial conditions, too. so there's actually a constant of integration. so really, hope for alcoholics when they're not drinking = 1+constant. maybe that constant is significantly negative.
