# Talk:Bogus Mathematical Theorems

(Difference between revisions)
 Revision as of 20:34, 24 November 2010 (edit)← Older edit Revision as of 21:31, 24 November 2010 (edit) (undo) (→The Inverse Property of Luck-Have)Newer edit → Line 26: Line 26: I was playing some [[Poker Night at the Inventory]] today, when I won a hand by a lot.  Strong Bad then said, "Yeah, you're lucky now, but you know you're gonna get run over by a truck when you leave here.  It's the Inverse Property of Luck-Have."  Is it worth including, especially since there's no even vaguely mathematical principle to it? --{{User:The New Uzi-Bazooka/sig}} 20:34, 24 November 2010 (UTC) I was playing some [[Poker Night at the Inventory]] today, when I won a hand by a lot.  Strong Bad then said, "Yeah, you're lucky now, but you know you're gonna get run over by a truck when you leave here.  It's the Inverse Property of Luck-Have."  Is it worth including, especially since there's no even vaguely mathematical principle to it? --{{User:The New Uzi-Bazooka/sig}} 20:34, 24 November 2010 (UTC) + :I think it should go in.  It's definitely of the same theme as the others on the page, despite not being represented with equation symbols.  The question becomes what is the best way to document it. -[[Special:Contributions/132.183.138.134|132.183.138.134]] 21:31, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

## Rename?

I don't know. It seems like "bogus" isn't a good word for this title... --TheYellowDart(t/c) 20:23, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

That's how Strong Bad himself introduced them. --DorianGray 20:24, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
True, and though "bogus" is an accurate description, "false" or "fictional" would be much more encyclopedic. — 20:25, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
But not as catchy. Nor official. "Bogus" is the only one that works. --DorianGray 20:28, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
The title's fine. We don't have to be as uptight as Wikipedia and can use the language used by TBC themselves when they are available rather than more formal language. Heimstern Läufer 20:33, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
I know this is a few years late, but if we were as uptight as Wikipedia, we would not be able to enjoy this wiki. Duh. That way, our witty captions for images would be bland. Thanks for that visual. Now i want to curl into a ball and rot. Nah, just kidding. --Jellote 23:53, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

## Wow

The one about the property of ones looks like something out of a textbook. Any way we can revise the other ones? Maybe? If they need to be? --Color Printer 02:14, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I think that one's just the most popular, and thus the most over-thought. --DorianGray 03:29, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

## Tenerence Love

This edit was reverted because it's not one of Strong Bad's theorems, but the title of this page isn't "Strong Bad's Bogus Mathematical Theorems", it's just "Bogus Mathematical Theorems". I think we could include other people's crazy math. Can anyone think of any other instances?-- 00:42, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, the other problem with that is it's a bogus mathematical equation, not theorem. -- 19:27, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I had considered adding it myself before deciding that it didn't really fit. -- Mithent 20:20, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Also, it's lyrics to a song. Most of the lyrics in rap song are hilariously nonsensical. – The Chort 21:22, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

## proportionality

Technically there should be a proportionality constant in house fun vs. host equation too, right? -128.103.10.123 16:28, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I see. That's how it's written by SB. (btw, the main space edit was a mistake) -132.183.140.194 17:27, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Oh, no problem. I don't know much of any stats so I didn't know if some actual theory required those variables. But yeah we wanted to keep constant with what SB wrote. --Stux 17:58, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

## The Inverse Property of Luck-Have

I was playing some Poker Night at the Inventory today, when I won a hand by a lot. Strong Bad then said, "Yeah, you're lucky now, but you know you're gonna get run over by a truck when you leave here. It's the Inverse Property of Luck-Have." Is it worth including, especially since there's no even vaguely mathematical principle to it? --The New Uzi Bazooka 20:34, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I think it should go in. It's definitely of the same theme as the others on the page, despite not being represented with equation symbols. The question becomes what is the best way to document it. -132.183.138.134 21:31, 24 November 2010 (UTC)