Murphy's law

[O-Ushi]

I was wandering around the internet and stumbled across a formula developed by a team of Scientists, sociologists and pyschologists. A formula for Murphy's (or Sod's) law. It is thus:

In the calculation, five factors have to be assessed: urgency (U), complexity (C), importance (I), skill (S) and frequency (F) and each given a score between one and nine. A sixth, aggravation (A), was set at 0.7 by the experts after their poll.

Top of the most likely - and most annoying - events was spilling something down yourself before a date and the boiler breaking down in cold weather, followed by rush hour being worse when you're already late.

The equation has seven steps to forecasting a potential Murphy's Law moment, so you can work out which factors you need to change to avoid it:

1. Rate the urgency, importance and complexity on a scale of one to nine and add the three figures together

2. Rate from one to nine how skilled you are at the task, then subtract this from 10

3. Multiply answers to 1 and 2 and divide by 20

4. Rate from one to nine how frequently you perform the task and divide this by 10

5. Rate the sine (or sin) of your answer to step 4 and subtract this from 1

6. Divide 1 by your answer to step 5

7. Multiply your answer to step 3 by 0.7 and multiply this by your answer to step 6, and that's your Sod's Law rating. The closer to 10 it is, the higher your risk of falling victim.

Or, to summarise

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

...just thought I'd let you know :D

[Gavin]

[SIZE=1]Interesting, most interesting.

It's funny to see how scientists have actually worked out a mathmatical formula behind Murphy's Law, though I suppose everything in life can be broken down to a simple equation. I shall endeavour to see if said equation actually works in a real life situation next time I believe I will experience a Murphy's Law moment, and report the findings.

There's also a sequel to Murphy's Law called O'Reilly's Law, put simply it says that Murphy was an optimist. ;). [/SIZE]

[Lady_Rin]

[quote=Ranger]
Ok if that's the case then doesn't that mean with a higher SOD rating that Murphey's Law works on itself. Assuming that as true; that Murphey's Law works on itself then it doesn't (work on itself). In which case it really does, work that is. [/quote]


[size=1] Ah! now I don't see[/size]


[IMG]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v43/desertranger/we.png[/IMG]

[Annie]

[size=1][color=darkred]Murphy's Law actually has a formula? I might be wrong, or misunderstood something, but the Murphy's Law I know doesn't have an acutal calculation.

From what I was taught from the military, Murphy's Law is described as anything that can go wrong, [b]will[/b] go wrong.

Am I confused with a different variation of Murphy's Law, if there are any different variations? [/color][/size]

[cinnamon]

Would Murphy's Law apply to that calculation? Because then, most likely, it's going to go wrong.

:D

[Delta]

[COLOR=DarkRed][SIZE=1]
*points up*
The chances of Murphy's Law turning on itself? Now, that's a lovely idea. Then they could compute the chances of the possibility of having an infinitisimal number of possible futures. *passes out*

I've a question though:
Are we allowed to use only natural numbers? If so, then at the worst case, the result would fall somewhere in the 8.5 mark. They should have set the limit there.

Sorry for spoiling the fun, loves; I believe that my luck cannot be quantified by any equation involving trigonometric operations.

Love and Peace!
[/SIZE][/COLOR]

[desertranger]

Lady Rin says "you can't quantify the un-quantifiable". doesn't that apply to murphey's law? isn't murpheys law the ultimate application of chaos theory? if so then you can't apply any system of numbering to it.

See it does work on itself, it doesn't, does it or doesn't?



[size=1] Ahh ! Yes! Now I don't understand.[/size]

[O-Ushi]

Well, basically the formula is putting an extremely complex issue that not only includes mathamatical ideas but also physical principles into layman's terms. Of course, with the basic principle hat people seem to get confused with is that this assumes there is [B]no definite in anything[/B]. There can be an extremely large probability that something can happen, but it can never be definite. The formula merely states te probability that the worse thingt hat could possibly happen will happen.

Unfortunately, there was some poblem writing this theory down, as their pens kept running out of ink and their paper spontaneously combusting :D

[Annie]

[color=indigo][size=1]I just found it utterly amusing that someone out there [b]actually[/b] sits down and thinks this stuff up. Makes you wonder about the personality and the mental state of that person. [/color][/size]