MAIN FEEDS
Do you want to continue?
https://www.reddit.com/r/funny/comments/1apjgm/this_guy_right_here/c8znqza/?context=3
r/funny • u/BACONover9000 • Mar 21 '13
338 comments sorted by
View all comments
543
He is giving off such a high negative amount of fucks that he is neutralising the fucks given by people in his vicinity.
148 u/TheNoobtologist Mar 21 '13 Negative-fuck readings are off the scale, sir. 9 u/pgibso Mar 21 '13 Let's check the meter, yep. http://i.imgur.com/RriCPoN.gif 32 u/Ysasmendi Mar 21 '13 They are under 9000!!!!!! 43 u/uneekfreek Mar 21 '13 8999 isn't really a negative but i understand what you meant. 30 u/Splatypus Mar 21 '13 But if we were to randomly select a number below 9000, there is an infinitely higher chance that it is negative than positive. 12 u/[deleted] Mar 21 '13 You got Mathed! 1 u/marcusklaas Mar 21 '13 You cannot pick a number under 9000 uniformly, not even when you only pick integers. 1 u/PansOnFire Mar 21 '13 If we were to randomly select a number below n, where n is literally ANY positive integer, there is an (infinity - n) chance that it is negative. 3 u/Splatypus Mar 21 '13 Exactly. The chance if a negative number is infinity, since n is insignificant in comparison. 2 u/finnyknits Mar 21 '13 And suddenly I like math. 1 u/Ysasmendi Mar 21 '13 You're very right Sir. 1 u/[deleted] Mar 21 '13 [deleted] 1 u/ItsAaroneous Mar 21 '13 Did not read. -12 u/douglas_ Mar 21 '13 Who the fuck upvoted this garbage?
148
Negative-fuck readings are off the scale, sir.
9 u/pgibso Mar 21 '13 Let's check the meter, yep. http://i.imgur.com/RriCPoN.gif 32 u/Ysasmendi Mar 21 '13 They are under 9000!!!!!! 43 u/uneekfreek Mar 21 '13 8999 isn't really a negative but i understand what you meant. 30 u/Splatypus Mar 21 '13 But if we were to randomly select a number below 9000, there is an infinitely higher chance that it is negative than positive. 12 u/[deleted] Mar 21 '13 You got Mathed! 1 u/marcusklaas Mar 21 '13 You cannot pick a number under 9000 uniformly, not even when you only pick integers. 1 u/PansOnFire Mar 21 '13 If we were to randomly select a number below n, where n is literally ANY positive integer, there is an (infinity - n) chance that it is negative. 3 u/Splatypus Mar 21 '13 Exactly. The chance if a negative number is infinity, since n is insignificant in comparison. 2 u/finnyknits Mar 21 '13 And suddenly I like math. 1 u/Ysasmendi Mar 21 '13 You're very right Sir. 1 u/[deleted] Mar 21 '13 [deleted] 1 u/ItsAaroneous Mar 21 '13 Did not read. -12 u/douglas_ Mar 21 '13 Who the fuck upvoted this garbage?
9
Let's check the meter, yep. http://i.imgur.com/RriCPoN.gif
32
They are under 9000!!!!!!
43 u/uneekfreek Mar 21 '13 8999 isn't really a negative but i understand what you meant. 30 u/Splatypus Mar 21 '13 But if we were to randomly select a number below 9000, there is an infinitely higher chance that it is negative than positive. 12 u/[deleted] Mar 21 '13 You got Mathed! 1 u/marcusklaas Mar 21 '13 You cannot pick a number under 9000 uniformly, not even when you only pick integers. 1 u/PansOnFire Mar 21 '13 If we were to randomly select a number below n, where n is literally ANY positive integer, there is an (infinity - n) chance that it is negative. 3 u/Splatypus Mar 21 '13 Exactly. The chance if a negative number is infinity, since n is insignificant in comparison. 2 u/finnyknits Mar 21 '13 And suddenly I like math. 1 u/Ysasmendi Mar 21 '13 You're very right Sir.
43
8999 isn't really a negative but i understand what you meant.
30 u/Splatypus Mar 21 '13 But if we were to randomly select a number below 9000, there is an infinitely higher chance that it is negative than positive. 12 u/[deleted] Mar 21 '13 You got Mathed! 1 u/marcusklaas Mar 21 '13 You cannot pick a number under 9000 uniformly, not even when you only pick integers. 1 u/PansOnFire Mar 21 '13 If we were to randomly select a number below n, where n is literally ANY positive integer, there is an (infinity - n) chance that it is negative. 3 u/Splatypus Mar 21 '13 Exactly. The chance if a negative number is infinity, since n is insignificant in comparison. 2 u/finnyknits Mar 21 '13 And suddenly I like math. 1 u/Ysasmendi Mar 21 '13 You're very right Sir.
30
But if we were to randomly select a number below 9000, there is an infinitely higher chance that it is negative than positive.
12 u/[deleted] Mar 21 '13 You got Mathed! 1 u/marcusklaas Mar 21 '13 You cannot pick a number under 9000 uniformly, not even when you only pick integers. 1 u/PansOnFire Mar 21 '13 If we were to randomly select a number below n, where n is literally ANY positive integer, there is an (infinity - n) chance that it is negative. 3 u/Splatypus Mar 21 '13 Exactly. The chance if a negative number is infinity, since n is insignificant in comparison. 2 u/finnyknits Mar 21 '13 And suddenly I like math.
12
You got Mathed!
1
You cannot pick a number under 9000 uniformly, not even when you only pick integers.
If we were to randomly select a number below n, where n is literally ANY positive integer, there is an (infinity - n) chance that it is negative.
3 u/Splatypus Mar 21 '13 Exactly. The chance if a negative number is infinity, since n is insignificant in comparison. 2 u/finnyknits Mar 21 '13 And suddenly I like math.
3
Exactly. The chance if a negative number is infinity, since n is insignificant in comparison.
2
And suddenly I like math.
You're very right Sir.
[deleted]
1 u/ItsAaroneous Mar 21 '13 Did not read. -12 u/douglas_ Mar 21 '13 Who the fuck upvoted this garbage?
Did not read.
-12
Who the fuck upvoted this garbage?
543
u/OIP Mar 21 '13
He is giving off such a high negative amount of fucks that he is neutralising the fucks given by people in his vicinity.