## improve upon the age/2+7 rule of creepynes

For the discussion of math. Duh.

Moderators: gmalivuk, Moderators General, Prelates

silverhammermba
Posts: 178
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2006 1:16 am UTC

### Re: improve upon the age/2+7 rule of creepynes

New idea: a continuous rather than binary creepiness function! Right now we have
$C(m, f) = \left\{ \begin{array}{l l} 1 & \quad \text{if \frac{m}{2} + 7 > f}\\ 0 & \quad \text{otherwise} \end{array} \right.$
But it would be cool if there was a function G with [imath]G(m, f) \in \unicode{x211d}[/imath] such that [imath]G(m, f) < 0 \Leftrightarrow C(m, f) = 1[/imath], for example. Then we could determine how creepy a 30 year old dating an 18 year old is compared to an 18 year old dating a 15 year old.

brötchen
Posts: 112
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2009 1:45 pm UTC

### Re: improve upon the age/2+7 rule of creepynes

nice idea about the non binary rule. this : http://blog.okcupid.com/index.php/the-c ... der-woman/ has some related data . seems like the age/2+7 rule is not quiet up to reality even when only considering ages significantly above 14

andrewxc
Posts: 223
Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2008 2:39 am UTC
Location: Savage, MD

### Re: improve upon the age/2+7 rule of creepynes

Mike_Bson wrote:Why should people under 14 be dating?

Just to point out, it's also illegal for anyone under the age of 16 to have sex in the state of New Hampshire. We had a story involving a kid who was 16 and his girlfriend was about a month shy of 16. The girl's father found out and pressed charges against the guy. I think he may have gone to jail (Juvie) for felonious sexual assault AND had to be put on the sexual predators' watch list (must register as a sex offender for the rest of his life).
http://www.cga.ct.gov/2003/olrdata/jud/ ... r-0149.htm
"We never do anything well unless we love doing it for its own sake."
Avatar: I made a "plastic carrier" for Towel Day à la So Long and Thanks for All the Fish.

quintopia
Posts: 2906
Joined: Fri Nov 17, 2006 2:53 am UTC
Location: atlanta, ga

### Re: improve upon the age/2+7 rule of creepynes

age +/- 15% folks

what can I say? I'm all about some symmetry.

gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26833
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

### Re: improve upon the age/2+7 rule of creepynes

You're saying it's okay for a 20-year-old to date a 17-year-old, but that same 17-year-old can only date up to someone 19.55? Doesn't seem very symmetrical to me...
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

Mike_Bson
Posts: 252
Joined: Mon Jul 12, 2010 12:00 pm UTC

### Re: improve upon the age/2+7 rule of creepynes

Noticed the same thing. Plus 15% or minus about 17.6%?

Alx_xlA
Posts: 69
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 11:22 pm UTC

### Re: improve upon the age/2+7 rule of creepynes

Clearly, the problem here is that we're trying to stick with the "traditional" rule. I propose that we determine the minimum and maximum for each age, and make a function that approximates it as much as possible.

Also, the graph will make a nifty demotivational poster.
My signature contains forty-four characters.

quintopia
Posts: 2906
Joined: Fri Nov 17, 2006 2:53 am UTC
Location: atlanta, ga

### Re: improve upon the age/2+7 rule of creepynes

I didn't mean symmetrical in the sense that it's a bijection. It's symmetrical in the sense that I will date as far above my age as I will below. Whether my function overlaps with the (presumably different) function of the person I pursue is one good way of narrowing down potential matches.

the tree
Posts: 801
Joined: Mon Apr 02, 2007 6:23 pm UTC
Location: Behind you

### Re: improve upon the age/2+7 rule of creepynes

quintopia wrote:I didn't mean symmetrical in the sense that it's a bijection. It's symmetrical in the sense that I will date as far above my age as I will below. Whether my function overlaps with the (presumably different) function of the person I pursue is one good way of narrowing down potential matches.
If you're suggesting that everyone should have their own boundaries, then you're essentially saying there shouldn't be a rule and that's no fun.

Macbi
Posts: 941
Joined: Mon Apr 09, 2007 8:32 am UTC
Location: UKvia

### Re: improve upon the age/2+7 rule of creepynes

gmalivuk wrote:You're saying it's okay for a 20-year-old to date a 17-year-old, but that same 17-year-old can only date up to someone 19.55? Doesn't seem very symmetrical to me...
Same thing applies to n/2+7 no?
Indigo is a lie.
Which idiot decided that websites can't go within 4cm of the edge of the screen?
There should be a null word, for the question "Is anybody there?" and to see if microphones are on.

Mike_Bson
Posts: 252
Joined: Mon Jul 12, 2010 12:00 pm UTC

### Re: improve upon the age/2+7 rule of creepynes

Macbi wrote:
gmalivuk wrote:You're saying it's okay for a 20-year-old to date a 17-year-old, but that same 17-year-old can only date up to someone 19.55? Doesn't seem very symmetrical to me...
Same thing applies to n/2+7 no?

No. n/2+7 tells you the youngest person you can date, nothing more; if you want to find the oldest, then it's 2n-14.

quintopia
Posts: 2906
Joined: Fri Nov 17, 2006 2:53 am UTC
Location: atlanta, ga

### Re: improve upon the age/2+7 rule of creepynes

the tree wrote:
quintopia wrote:I didn't mean symmetrical in the sense that it's a bijection. It's symmetrical in the sense that I will date as far above my age as I will below. Whether my function overlaps with the (presumably different) function of the person I pursue is one good way of narrowing down potential matches.
If you're suggesting that everyone should have their own boundaries, then you're essentially saying there shouldn't be a rule and that's no fun.

I'm not saying there is no rule.

I'm just saying that the general rule is a function of (person,age) and not just (age).