[Kjell Lindberg]

While the minimum number of motorcycles one should own is three, the correct number is actually n+1, where n is the number of
bikes currently owned.

This equation may also be re-written as s-1, where s is the number of bikes owned that would result in
separation from your partner.

 

[angelo]

Your base equation is flawed as it doesn't factor desirable against possible - I think 5 is the base point with 5+ or -1 subject to the minimum never falling below 5 and 5 can include variables of differing values subject to +1 accumulating increased value on disposal.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - now Free

 

[Nickel Arse]

Or maybe 3³


The three you need, the three you want, and the three you have

 

[Kjell Lindberg]

Or maybe 3³


The three you need, the three you want, and the three you have

and the three you never should have parted with.

 

[Rubberchicken]

Motorcycles are like peanuts.

Who can stop at one?


(Says the guy with currently one motorcycle...)

 

[Lutin]

While the minimum number of motorcycles one should own is three, the correct number is actually n+1, where n is the number of
bikes currently owned.

This equation may also be re-written as s-1, where s is the number of bikes owned that would result in
separation from your partner.

So, combining the two equations above we have -

n + 1 = s - 1

or n = s - 2

So that would mean that the correct number of motorcycles is actually 2 away from divorce and not 1.

Confused of Galway.





Who also has only one bike.........



100% free webcam site! | Awesome chicks and it is absolutely free! | Watch free live sex cam - easy as 1-2-3

 

[Lulu]

May I just say that I am loving this thread

Who also only has one bike but who also has aspirations for multi-bike ownership....

 

[Whealie]

It's all to do with volume (how big your garage is) - G

But that gets confusing because

N+1 = G means G = N-1

But

S - 1= G means G = S + 1

So the capacity if your garage is more than enough for the bikes you want but full, would result in divorce.

 

[Whealie]

I forgot to factor in space for tools (T)

So G - T = N+1

And

G - T = S - 1

Either way T = 1 so you must own enough tools to take thee space of an entire motorbike just to save your marriage.

More tools required, then (though I suspect my wife may give the statement the letter B).

 

[kitped]

Does this of course include P+1 for the project bike that is work in progress!!

 

[angelo]

What about C - Classic?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - now Free

 

[dod]

If you have a P you need space for it W (workspace) as S is allocated.
W=2 ? need to get both sides of the project although I sometimes think it gets to 5 or 6 when I look in my garage an see the bits scattered al over the floor.

 

[ianbiggar]

I love this!
ian

 

[Rubberchicken]

It's all to do with volume (how big your garage is) - G

But that gets confusing because

N+1 = G means G = N-1

Now solve for !G.

And then there's the bit where N in the context of G is variable, as you could fit nearly 2 Dominators in the space of 1 GS... Nevermind a sidecar. And you need to factor in S for skill, in packing various N into your G.

This could get complicated.

 

[Lutin]

Now solve for !G.

And then there's the bit where N in the context of G is variable, as you could fit nearly 2 Dominators in the space of 1 GS... Nevermind a sidecar. And you need to factor in S for skill, in packing various N into your G.

This could get complicated.

But we also have to differentiate between "S" for separation (see post number 1) and "S" for skill.

And then there's the introduction of "Not S" (in a logical sense) for those of a cack-handed disposition.

It is all getting rather interesting.



100% free webcam site! | Awesome chicks and it is absolutely free! | Watch free live sex cam - easy as 1-2-3

 

[Dee Dub]

And when you need a P, you have get out your T (see post #9).

 

[Kjell Lindberg]

I have noticed (by field testing) that the variable S in the formula s-1, (where s is the number of bikes owned that would result in
separation from your partner) is very variable.

The value of S can be adjusted by means of bribes. By using bribes, promises, positive cash adjustments to partners account etc. the value of S can best be described as S=Sp+Bs were Sp is previous S before bribe and Bs is bribe size.

Field testing on partner close to me (located in kitchen) showed that there is no limit to the value of S as long as Bs is correspondingly increased.

 

[Lutin]

Field testing on partner close to me (located in kitchen) showed that there is no limit to the value of S as long as Bs is correspondingly increased.

But is this true in all cases?



100% free webcam site! | Awesome chicks and it is absolutely free! | Watch free live sex cam - easy as 1-2-3

 

[Rubberchicken]

If not, there is still the BS factor. ;-)

 

[scouseviking]

Wish I had stayed awake in algebra class now as a lad so I could work out this complicated problem.:thumbup: