GUYS
i found a problem with s4s
so you know how ironic sh*tposting is just sh*tposting (rude pic related, sorry for rude)
well we thought we got around that by ironically ironically sh*tposting and so on, with more advanced memers increasing the levels of ironically.
BUT THERE'S A PROBLEM! since ironic sh*tposting = sh*tposting by definition:
ironic (ironic sh*tposting) = ironic sh*tposting = sh*tposting!!!!
AND WORSE, in general, where n is a natural number
n*(ironic) sh*posting = sh*tposting!
subtracting sh*tposting from both sides:
n*ironic = 0
ironic = 0!!!
IRONY DOESN'T MEAN ANYTHING
S4S IS A LIE
WE'RE ALL JUST SH*TPOSTING
aaaaaAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
kiss my wittle puppy nose
>>4192023
Just say shitposting. Do you really have to censor it when the implication is not nice as well?
>>4192037
*smooches nose ironically*
>>4192042
i was just trying to be nice to the more sensitive viewers, though i suppose this horrifying revelation would be enough to trigger anybody, i know i got triggered
double negatives idiote... -_g
-__- who is trash talking ironic shitposting... otakus get ready for war
>>4192023
*funposting :^)
-__- who is trash talking ironic shitposting... otakus get ready for war
(￣人￣) Hello. I am "Mr. Likes To Sage Threads". I do believe this thread is in need of Sage, so I would like to sage it. That is why my name is "Mr. Likes To Sage Threads".
>>4192315
>>4192327
shitposting is my lifeblood. i'm a simple man, i enjoy a good ironic shitposting session myself. i'm not trash talking anything, i'm just relaying that there is a fundemental mathematical inconsistency in what we here at s4s do every day. ever since i discovered that it all means nothing, i've been struggling to find meaning in my life. that's why i'm going to kill myself when this thread dies. goodbye s4s, it's been fun. i'll see you on page 10.
i dont know about op, but i only ever funpost tbh
>>4192336
this is an example of a shitpost
im just here to slurge in that anime
>>4192758
don't let the ass your hit out on the way door
>>4192774
he wouldnt hurt a fly tho
>>4192090
If you don't want to be triggered turn into stick
>>4192023
Sh*tposting is the polar opposite to funposting. While funposting often involves posting the same thing in new and exciting ways and contexts, sh*tposting involves posting infinite variations that amount to the same thing. Currently /r9k/ is the functioning museum of sh*tposting; contrast their ceaseless flood of feels no one reads to the light hearted and highly innovative mutative reposting that takes place in [s4s]. A good way to practice funposting is to simply copy and repost this piece of text. After a few dozen times, you're probably experience enough to come up with your own original funposts like this.
this is embarrassing not even kidding get a life!!
>>4192023
>07/06/12
>12
Lol
>>4193044
>44
>timedubs
Excellent dub dubs
>>4193016
funposting.
OF COURSE! how could i forget funposting of all things? i was too wrapped up in the revelation that irony = 0.
>>4192023 shows that it is impossible to shitpost ironically, which means you can only shitpost seriously. that is, irony = 0 in the context of shitposting.
since funposting is the polar opposite of shitposting as you say, that is,
-funposting = shitposting
it is possible to prove that irony is meaningless in the context of funposting thusly:
n*(ironic) + shitposting = shitposting
transform to funposting domain:
n*(ironic) - funposting = -funposting
n*(ironic) = 0
so in the funposting domain
ironic = 0
in conclusion, it is mathematically impossible to shitpost or funpost at any level of irony. in other words, one can only shitpost or funpost seriously.
this means that to avoid shitposting we can just funpost. i suppose that conclusion didn't need any math, but it's good to have a formal mathematical conclusion for future meme theorems.
i'm not going to kill myself any more. thank you, new mot, for showing me my foolishness.
>>4192336
nobody asked for your opinion!!
>>4192023
what idiot made moot an admin anyway
>>4192023
That's why you funpost instead.
>future meme theorems:
I'd like philossofise about serious funposting.
A thing that is both serious and fun...
How do we prove that isn't a paradox? Or is it?
>>4192023
No friend, if S = sh*tposting,
n*(ironic)*S = S
DEVIDE both sides by S, to get
n*(ironic) = 1
So ironic = 1/n
Subtracting would just give
n*(ironic)*S = S
S(n*(ironic) - 1) = 0
Which reduces, again, to ironic = 1/n
What does this mean, then?
If ironic = 1/n, that means it gets less ironic the more you try to make it ironic.
And note if n = 0, ironic is both positive and negative infinity, depending on how you approach it.
Which is common sense, really. Posting unironically is both the most and the least ironic thing you can do.
>>4193183
It does indeed depend on how we apply the irony. We can conclude that ADDITIVE irony is 0. However, multiplicative irony follows the law you just described. So it is possible to use irony, it just has diminishing returns. What is an example of this though? What is the real meme difference between additive and multiplicative irony?
>>4193200
Nice dubs, and excellent question! I had considered that as well; what makes the multiplicative more correct than the additive?
I'm doing more research now, I will share when I've found something.
>>4193239
I don't know if "more correct" is the right word for it. We need to consider the possibility that there are multiple kinds of irony. I agree that we need to do more research, I'll be back in a few hours and report if I find anything.
I think it would be important to first define moot's law.
We know that ironic sh*tposting is sh*tposting, but we don't know excatly how the two are related.
The additive
nI + S = S
>implies that irony is zero
The multiplicative
nIS = S
>implies irony decreases the more as you increase the irony you put into the system
The n-power
(I^n) S = S
>implies that irony is a constant of 1, even at n = 0; irony cannot be changed by increasing or decreasing n
Which form of moot's law is to be applied in a certain situation is not yet known, but research is being done as we speak.
However, it it not even known if these forms are correct. It could be that the relationship is far more complex than we had previously expected, possibly including variables such as the irony already in the thread, the average irony of the board, the apparent self-awareness of the poster, and many others.
We're on the cutting edge here, people.
im sorry I knew all along but i didnt say anything becuz we were having fun
Moot was never fun
Always came off as a whiny beta tryhard
>>4193281
Being part of the cult was fun though right...
>>4193274
Well, let's generalize irony, then. We know that according to moots law, irony applied to shitposting is shitposting. Let's create a function;
I(m, n, p)
>where m is the magnitude of irony, n is the number of layers applied, and p is the posting style.
By moot's law,
I(m, n, S) = S.
and the irony layering axiom:
I(m, a, I(m, b, p)) = I(m, a+b, p)
We can prove theorems using this general representation.
Let us also define different "realms" of irony. So far we have the additive realm, the multiplicative realm, and the n-th power realm, where
I(m, n, p) = m*n + p
>additive realm
I(m, n, p) = m*n*p
>multiplicative realm
I(m, n, p) = (m^n) * p
>n-th power realm
Can we assume that you can't mix different realms of irony?
>>4193318
Actually, let's further restrict the definition.
Moot's law is as follows:
"ironic shitposting is just shitposting". That's just one layer of irony. So:
I(m, 1, S) = S.
But we can prove
I(m, n, S) = S
through induction and the assumption of the irony layering axiom.
The irony layering axiom states
I(m, a, I(m, b, p)) = I(m, a+b, p).
Now that I've stated the two rules I need, let's begin the proof.
I(m, 1, S) = S
>base case, moot's law
Assuming
I(m, n, S) = S,
Prove
I(m, n+1, S) = S.
I(m, n+1, S)
= I(m, n, I(m, 1, S))
>by the irony layering axiom
= I(m, n, S)
>by moot's law
= S
>by our initial assumption.
Restating,
I(m, n+1, S) = S.
Thus, I(m, n, S) = S. Our conjecture is true.
>>4192023
I just bit on a bunch of ginger and my mouth is burning
oh fug it really makes my stomach feel funner
Ok, so I just found something interesting. It can be said that shitposting is the opposite of funposting, correct? Well we can say that either
S = -F,
>S the additive inverse of F
Or
S = 1/F
>S is the multiplicative inverse of F.
Something interesting happens if you assume both:
S = -F AND S = 1/F
-F = 1/F
-F^2 = 1
F^2 = -1
F = sqrt(-1)
F = j, where j is the imaginary unit.
>i'm using j instead of i for the imaginary unit to avoid confusion because I is irony.
So,
S = -j
This means we can solve for shitposting if we assume funposting and shitposting are at once additive and multiplicative inverses of eachother! Of course, this is a pretty hefty assumption. I'm not sure if this is usable, but it might be possible to represent irony as a function in the complex plane.
>mathematical shitposting
>>4192037
*kisses*
>>4192023
~~*DAILY REMINDER*~~
that if you're being unironic ironicallyYOU'RE STILL BEING IRONIC
[irony needed]
>>4193604
I've found that it is indeed possible to represent irony as a complex function.
First, let me formally write some definitions to avoid confusion.
The following variables and constants will be applied henceforth:
>m = the magnitude of irony, a real number.
>n = layers of irony, a natural number including zero.
>p = posting style, a complex number.
>S = the fundamental shitposting unit
>F = the fundamental funposting unit
>I(m, n, p) = irony as a function of m, n, p. Maps into the complex plane.
>j = the imaginary unit.
AXIOMS:
I. Moot's Axiom: "Ironic shitposting is just shitposting."
> I(m, 1, S) = S
II. Irony Layering Axiom:
> I(m, a, I(m, b, p)) = I(m, a+b, p)
III. The Binary Posting Axiom:
> S = -F AND S = 1/F
and a fourth, new axiom:
IV. The Serious Business Axiom:
> I(0, n, p) = I(m, 0, p) = I(0, 0, p) = p
>That is, if the magnitude or level of irony is zero, do not affect the posting style.
And now, a few helpful equalities proven earlier.
Moot's Theorem, implied by the axioms I and II:
> I(m, n, S) = S.
See >>4193381 for a proof.
The Posting Constants, implied by axiom III:
> S = -j, F = j.
See >>4193604 for a proof.
I will derive a solution for I(m, n, p) in the next post.
>>4193832
I'm not sure you have justified the need for the magnitude or is this just common practice when it comes to construction of mematics?
>>4193832
kek, forgot my name
So, via Moot's Theorem and the posting constants, we know that
> I(m, n, -j) = -j
and by axiom IV,
> I(m, 0, p) = p
> I(0, n, p) = p
AND by axiom II,
> I(m, a, I(m, b, p)) = I(m, a+b, p)
So we need to find a function I(m, n, p) that satisfies these rules.
I propose this function:
>I(m, n, p) = m*n*(j + p) + p
Let's test it against our four rules:
> m*n*(j + (-j)) + -j = 0 + -j = -j
> m*0*(j + p) + p = 0 + p = p
> 0*n*(j + p) + p = 0 + p = p
> I(m, a, I(m, b, p)) = m*a*(j + m*b*(j + p) + p) + m*b*(j + p) + p
> = m*a*(j + p + m*b*(j + p)) + m*b*(j + p) + p
> = m*a*(j + p)*(1 + m*b) + m*b*(j + p) + p
> = (m*a*(1 + m*b) + m*b)*(j + p) + p
> = (m*a + m*a*m*b + m*b)*(j + p) + p
> = m*(a + m*a*b + b)*(j + p) + p
> = I(m, a+m*a*b+b, p)
Uh oh, that doesn't work. Back to the drawing board. If anyone can propose a function that fits these rules, please do so. I may not be back for a while.
>>4193871
The function is how much irony you put in at a certain layer of irony for a given posting style. For example, 4 irony at level 1 is not the same thing as 4 irony at level 2 or 3 and so on. At least that's what this model assumes. Irony is a very complex subject and I feel I'm only scratching the surface.
>>4193288
nice le dub's
>>4193879
very exciting stuff, I think there is some practical benefits of interpretation irony with a magnitude, because combining several shitposts into a vector would give us a neat graphical interpretation of the thread.
>>4193810
>if you're being unironic ironically
>you're still being ironic
Let's test that, shall we?
Let's let a function F(p) = I(m, n, p) for a constant m, n, and variable p.
F(p) can be said to be "being ironic" at a certain magnitude and level.
Additionally, we let F^-1(p) be the inverse of F(p) and be "being unironic" at an equivalent magnitude and level.
Now, let's translate your english statement into memematics:
>unironic ironically = ironic
> F(F^-1(p)) = F(p)
Which is, of course, untrue, as the inverse of a function applied to that function returns the input of the inner function. That is,
> F(F^-1(p)) = p.
So your statement is false, friend.
Should we ask /sci/ for help?
>>4192023
You're forgetting the funposting corollary.
>>4194091
They're too busy calculating what would happen if a lava sun collided with an ice sun.
>>4192336
/thread
Is this board just one big meme? I don't understand
>>4194111
calculating these trips
>>4192023
>aaaaaAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
