How come there's no 4D women
>>4039351
what, 3d women arent enough for u? maybe youre into weiners instead. explore weiners. if u like what u see consider slittin ur throat
>>4039351
Women's importance is described in an inverse relationship by how many times their dimensions can be divided by two, with odd numbers of dimensions being of no importance. The function is imp = (1-(dim%2))((22check em/dim)^1.9205). As you can see, 2d is near 100% importance, while all other dimensions are of less importance, therefore we have no need for 4d women.
>>4039619
If my calculations are correct, the importance of women of 0 or fewer dimensions is undefined, women with any odd number of dimensions are completely unimportant, and women with an even number of dimensions have an importance inversely related to their number of dimensions. Thus you are correct in concluding that two-dimensional women are the most important, albeit only if we limit ourselves to integer numbers of dimensions. If we accept the possibility of partial dimensions, it is possible to demonstrate that there exists a type of woman even more important than the two-dimensional woman, even with an importance greater than 100. Per the equation, a woman of 0.1 dimensions has an importance of over 25000%, seemingly violating the law of conservation of importance. It is even possible for a woman to have NEGATIVE importance, if her number of dimensions is equal to n + y where n is an odd integer and y is a number between 0 and 1. In conclusion, if future experiments prove the existence of women with a non-integer number of dimensions, it would have tremendous implications for importance theory.
