Scientists Define Murphy's Law

Jesrad writes "A mathematician, a psychologist and an economist commissioned by British Gas have finally put into mathematical terms what we all knew: that things don't just go wrong, they do so at the most annoying moment.The formula, ((U+C+I) x (10-S))/20 x A x 1/(1-sin(F/10)), indicates that to beat Murphy's Law (a.k.a. Sod's Law) you need to change one of the parameter: U for urgency, C for complexity, I for importance, S for skill, F for frequency and A for aggravation. Or in the researchers' own words: "If you haven't got the skill to do something important, leave it alone. If something is urgent or complex, find a simple way to do it. If something going wrong will particularly aggravate you, make certain you know how to do it." Don't you like it when maths back up common sense ?"

Another famous proof

Women are evil [wisc.edu].

And while we're on mathematical jokes...

A mathematician, a psychologist and an economist

is clearly the lead into something like

were on a train travelling from Glasgow to Edinburgh when they saw a sheep. The psychologist said, "Look: Scottish sheep are black!" The economist replied, "Well, we can at least say that some Scottish sheep are black." At this the mathematician spoke up: "There exists at least one sheep in Scotland at least one side of which is black."

Er...

Maths doesn't work like that. Writing something down as a formula doesn't automatically tell you something new or prove something.

It sounds like they're trying to describe how things can go wrong with a formula. That's nice, but it's just their opinion.

Re:Er...

The biggest dilemma is that this formula is just not testable. Clearly any test would be very Important and have to be carried out Frequently, and a test that covers all the situations to which Murphy's law might apply is clearly going to have to be Complex. So plugging all of that in, we see that, even if the formula is correct, all your attempts to verfiy it are doomed to failure!

Jedidiah.

Re:Hundreds!

I'd say aggrivation could be measured in slashdots

Re:Hundreds!

>> My friends love using quantifiers on values that can'be given a number:

>> "I have hundreds of luck. HUNDREDS!"

>I'm sorry, that's only three funny.

Apparently, so is your comment.

Re:equals

I don't see how this particular formula is testable. How does one quantify urgency or aggravation in order to test the model? Methinks they left out the most important variable, B for Bullshit, measured in metric tons. ;)

Re:equals

Urgency and aggravation are measured on their own relative scale, as percentages of unity (0.0->1.0). Urgency is asymptotic to the deadline, and aggravation is a combinatoric of other factors, possibly even keyed to the multidimensional gravity vector of the iotas of info. Schneidics postulates that just as space = gravity = matter = energy, so does energy = info. We're all describing schneidodynamics, detailing mechanisms that can be engineered into applications. Current mathematical tools are mostly targeting applications in grant engineering.

Re:equals

Those axioms are observations. One important observation, one of two axioms underpinning all of math (and therefore science), is "consistency". The other is falsifiability, that only statements that can be proven false are scientific - the rest are metaphysical. Math such as "all triangles are composed of three interior angles totaling 180 degrees" is an observation, that is supported by theories and constructions. Physics applies math by interpreting the mathematical relationships in observed phenomena.

I suggest you go and read some Bertrand Russell on philisophy of mathematics. Mathematics isn't based on observation at all. It's based on what axioms you choose to start with and using deductive logic from there - and you would be very surprised about how basic and not based on observation the funcamental axioms of mathematics are, presuming you bother to look at works that build up math from as small a foundation as possible. On that front, I would suggest you look at Principia Mathematica by Russell and Whitehead, which is pretty much the book on purest mathematical foundations.

Jedidiah.

Re:equals

Those axioms are observations.

No, those axioms are just the assumptions that a mathematician made. They don't have anything to do with reality, or the things we observe there. Every theorem has hypotheses and a conclusion; writing every one of those hypotheses every time you make a statement gets old, so you declare some things to be true before you get started.

One important observation, one of two axioms underpinning all of math (and therefore science), is "consistency". The other is falsifiability, that only statements that can be proven false are scientific - the rest are metaphysical.

The notion of consistency that troubles logicians is a matter of axioms -- it is merely a matter of whether there is a statement such that it and its negation follow from the axioms. Nothing to do with reality. As for "falsifiability", that has absolutely nothing to do with mathematics. Things are proven to be absolutely true in mathematics all the time.

Math such as "all triangles are composed of three interior angles totaling 180 degrees" is an observation.

No.

I feel I must repeat: No.

That the sum of the angles in a triangle is 180 degrees is a consequence of the axioms. It is most definitely not an observation, since it isn't actually true in the real world (though it is very close to what you might measure).

The statement about angles is a consequence of Euclidean geometry. Work in a different geometry (ie non-flat, like spherical or hyperbolic geometry) and the formula for the sum of the angles is very different.

Apparantly not and many others like him don't get

Apparantly not and many others like him don't get it either. Read the comments below and weep for what once was /. home of the nerd/geek who understood math jokes.

It is a joke people. No need to question who did it or what school they went to or discuss the merits of trying to explain the nature of probability in a formula.

A FUCKING JOKE. If you need it simpler it is like the old "You can have it fast, good or cheap. Pick two" but with more braces.

Seriously read the comments. A lot just don't seem to get it at all. Those few who did. Thank god. All hope is not lost. To those who didn't go I recommend suicide. Make the world a happier place.

I don't believe it!

Jesrad writes "A mathematician, a psychologist and an economist commissioned by British Gas have finally put into mathematical terms what we all knew: that things don't just go wrong, they do so at the most anno.... 503 service unavailable

Ugh

Quick, somebody start arguing about probability!

And to avoid damaging the galaxies

Better avoid a frequency of exactly 5*Pi.

Explanation

((U+C+I) x (10-S))/20 x A x 1/(1-sin(F/10))

The parent is noting that if you plug in 5*(pi) into F, you get sin(5*(pi)/10), which equals sin((pi)/2), which equals 1. The problem occurs when you evaluate this part: 1/(1-sin(F/10)), because you get 1/(1-1), which is 1/0, and division by 0 is prohibited.

most annoying moment

"things don't just go wrong, they do so at the most annoying moment"

That's because, when things go wrong, it becomes the most annoying moment. My dishwaster just starting leaking all over the floor btw. Damn you murphy!

Re:most annoying moment

First fire the arrow.
Then paint the target.

Fire up the laserjet!

Bumper sticker for me!

((U+C+I) x (10-S))/20 x A x 1/(1-sin(F/10))

Yeah baby! Learn it, live it, love it!

Actually, this formula is my life story in a nutshell.....

IT'S A JOKE!

Notice the foot? It's supposed to be a somewhat humorous little blurb about something silly.

What a fun crowd we've got around here on Sunday...

Asskissing gives you better results than hardwork!

And from today's joke at thehun.com [thehun.com] (link not work safe!!) ...

From a strictly mathematical viewpoint it goes like this:

What makes 100%?

What does it mean to give MORE than 100%?

Ever wonder about these people who say they are giving more than 100%?

We have all been to these meetings where someone wants you to give over 100%

How about achieving 103%? What makes up 100% in life?

Here's a little mathematical formula that might help you answer these question.

If:

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z is represented as:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26.

Then:

H A R D W O R K

8+18+4+23+15+18+11 = 98%

K N O W L E D G E

11+14+15+23+12+5+4+7+5 = 96%

But:

A T T I T U D E

1+20+20++9+20+21+4+5 = 100%

And:

B U L L S H I T

2+21+12+12+19+8+9+20 = 103%

AND, Look how far ass kissing will take you.

A S S K I S S I N G

1+19+19+11+9+19+19+9+14+7 = 118%

So, one can conclude with mathematical certainty that whilst hard work and knowledge will get you close, and attitude will get you there, it's the bullshit and ass kissing that will put you over the top.

And Dr. Lewis Is Always Right

Project psychologist Dr David Lewis said... "So, if you haven't got the skill to do something important, leave it alone. If something is urgent or complex, find a simple way to do it. If something going wrong will particularly aggravate you, make certain you know how to do it."

When asked why so many of his psychotherapy patients commit suicide, Dr. Lewis went on to say, "You're implying something went wrong. They would have become serial murderers or child rapists if I handn't helped them. Are you saying I should be aggravated over the outcome of having saved lives while protecting little children from molestation? If I didn't have the skills I have, you might not be standing here asking such questions, you Wanker."

Close

If that actually were Murphy's Law [wikipedia.org], then that would be an impressive story.

It's not, it's not the same thing as Sod's Law, and the law you're thinking of is Finagle's.

Ironicly, having it called Murphy's Law by a reporter from the Courier-Mail is an example of Murphy's Law.

Sod's Law = Murphy's Law

Murphy's Law: If it can go wrong it will

Sod's Law: It will go wrong at the worst posible time.

Re:Sod's Law NOT= Murphy's Law

For example, the exclamation point key will stop working on a keyboard: Murphy's Law.

It'll do it when typing a subject into /. and completely reverse the subject's meaning: Sod's Law.

And yes, it really did stop working. Bugger.

The math IS common sense

Don't you like it when maths back up common sense ?

The equation in the post is a model---an invention for the purposes of prediction and description. It's effectively a mathematical restatement of common sense insights and (hopefully) statistical tendencies derived from psychological and economic studies. So to say that this work backs up common sense is missing the point to some extent: most of the meat was there first as common sense, and the math just expresses it more precisely and more in keeping with observed data.

Note that F=ma and the rest of Newton's laws also form a model in the same way that this equation does. What made them so revolutionary was that the ideas behind the models were very powerful, making the models themselves extremely accurate. We'll have to wait and see whether this Murphy's Law model is backed by similarly potent insights.

--Tom