Comments on: #337 – Wherein Al’bert subtly gains the upper hand http://www.purnicellin.com/lint/2008/05/30/05302008/ Lint Mon, 06 Feb 2012 22:27:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Lenaru http://www.purnicellin.com/lint/2008/05/30/05302008/comment-page-1/#comment-4090 Lenaru Sat, 11 Jun 2011 06:31:08 +0000 http://www.purnicellin.com/lint/?p=486#comment-4090 Or, actually, I wrote that wrong. Log (base 42) of x is equal to f(x) times negative infinity plus one. Whatevs. Or, actually, I wrote that wrong. Log (base 42) of x is equal to f(x) times negative infinity plus one. Whatevs.

]]> By: Lenaru http://www.purnicellin.com/lint/2008/05/30/05302008/comment-page-1/#comment-4089 Lenaru Sat, 11 Jun 2011 06:19:25 +0000 http://www.purnicellin.com/lint/?p=486#comment-4089 I must run calculations.<br><br>Following the precept that "the bigger they are the harder they fall," also Napoleon, I would assume that this follows the model of an exponential equation. If f(x) equals the force of the fall and x equals "bigness" in awesomeness points, then the function of x is equal to 42 to the xth power times negative infinity plus one. Thus, if you were originally as low as Al'bert, you fall up. This is my postulate. (nod nod) I must run calculations.

Following the precept that “the bigger they are the harder they fall,” also Napoleon, I would assume that this follows the model of an exponential equation. If f(x) equals the force of the fall and x equals “bigness” in awesomeness points, then the function of x is equal to 42 to the xth power times negative infinity plus one. Thus, if you were originally as low as Al'bert, you fall up. This is my postulate. (nod nod)

]]>