The true meaning of love

Whilst sitting in science yesterday with Elliot and feeling immensely bored unstimulated, I decided to work out the true meaning of love.  Well, if you want me to do some real work, try motivating me with something other than photocopies mind-numbing physics worksheets.

There is a trend within the much hated ‘Emo’ subculture here in England of drawing hearts as <3.  This comes from instant messaging conversations and websites wanting a textual alternative to the heart, but some quite mislead people took it upon themselves to take this out of context and draw textual hearts everywhere – on their school planners, on posters, on cards, etc. – in an attempt to conform and feel like they’re a part of the Emo or scene subcultures.

Somewhere along the line, the textual heart changed into a replacement for the word ‘love’ (some people have decided to make themselves sound even more mentally retarded by replacing the word ‘love’ with the word ‘heart’, resulting in moronic declarations such as ‘I heart you!’).  But <3 is also a mathematical statement – it is shorthand for ‘less than three’.

So, ‘love’ equals ‘less than three’ mathematically.  ‘Less than three’ in positive integers can be one of two numbers: 1 or 2.  So in its most basic form:

The meaning of love = 1 or 2

However, I believe that love can be simplified.  If we want to get a simplified number out of a series of numbers, we can average them.  As we only have two integers, the only possible method of averaging is mean.

( 1 + 2 ) / 2  =  1.5

So, the outcome of my physics lesson is that I have learnt nothing new whatsoever about moments or turning points, but have solved the meaning of love:

The Meaning of Love  =  1.5

11 Responses to “The true meaning of love”

  1. Becky says:

    lol very good geek :p

    xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

  2. Maisie says:

    mr frankenburg teaches you mathematics well. :] xx

  3. An anonymous viewer says:

    Hmmm… he is right… i think

  4. orangeacid says:

    Nah, Frankie would want to get surds or standard form in there somewhere…

  5. moley says:

    how can we contact you as your contact page dont work

    p.s what site builder do you use or do you type out your html.

  6. Tom says:

    But if its less than 3 surely you could include -1, -2, -3, -4 so therefore the meaning off love is anything below

  7. orangeacid says:

    moley: you can contact me when I get the page sorted out, or via this blog as people have been doing. Or try my gmail account. I dont use a site builder – unlike some people, I actually posess the ability to code my sites by hand. I write sites in xHTML, which is the language that will eventually replace HTML 4. I style my pages using CSS. I won’t get into that right now – google them if you want more info. Check out my source code if you want. My site is powered by WordPress.

    Tom: If it were less than three then it would be negative. What is negitive love? You don’t get that, do you. Thats why the post states that the meaning of love is in positive integers. It’s only supposed to be a bit of fun anyway, dont look into it too seriously :p

  8. Tom says:

    Apoligies Dan I guess I’m not up to the Mr Frankenburg standard yet, see you Friday Week

  9. Jess says:

    thats actually a good statement though im sure alot of the emos and ‘scene’ kids would argue it. however my opinion follows yours.

  10. AMY says:

    dan foy.
    I 1.5 YOU.
    frankyspanky would be proud.
    see your more clever than maisie.
    she cant even spell cumalitive frequency.

  11. […] Pictures have poor quality and composition as a pre-requisite. The majority of comments go like this: “omfg, look at yoo! Sex on legs, init I want to get inside ur panties! *penetrates* much lov xxxxx <3 <3 <3“ […]

Leave a Reply