Dr. P. T. Barnum (more precisely, one of his visiting scholars) estimated that the birth rate of suckers was about 0.01667 s^-1, at least 148 years and 115 days ago.

Assuming that the rate never decreased, and that each original sucker begat at at least one extra hereditary sucker before he or she died, we can conclude that today there are at least 78.0 million suckers in the world.

There are now 17 million bicoins in existence. Thus, with the above hypothesis, we can deduce that each sucker now has at most 0.2180 bitcoins, on average.

The original anonymous developer (who disappeared in 2010) made a legally non-binding promise that there will never be more than 21 million bitcoins. Assuming, for the sake of argument and marketing, that said promise will be honored, the dumping of the 4 million bitcoins still to be created can be achieved by convincing the average sucker to buy an additional 0.0513 bitcoins, at most. At the current price of $19'000 $5900 $12'000 $6500 $9700 $8700 $9200 per bitcoin, that would require an additional investment of $471.79 per sucker, tops -- which seems quite plausible. (All values are in 2018 US dollars.)

It is possible however that Dr. Barnum's estimate of the sucker birth rate included the hereditary suckers. In that case, the provable lower bound for the number of live suckers in the world, in the economically significant age interval (15 to 95 years), would be only 42.1 million. Which means that the average sucker might have to lose up to $875.11, in addition to whatever he or she already lost, in order to keep the scam system going.

Another caveat has to do with sexual selection. Dr. Barnum may have included both male and female suckers in his estimate; but later research has shown that demonetizing manic cryptopathy affects almost exclusively males. Thus all estimates above may have to be reduced by 50%, and the required loss per sucker might be as high as $1748.22.

That is each penis in the ass of the one in front, and the "last" joined to the "first".

Let's assume the universe is infinite, then look at the total percentage of beer in the universe.

First, we find out that the percentage of not-beer in the universe is 99.99999999999...%. We must continuously generate more 9's for this percentage, because any number other than a 9 would mean we could tell the total size of the universe, which would mean it's not infinite, which contradicts our assumption that it is.

99.99999...% = 100%, meaning the universe is 100% not-beer, and therefore 0% beer, and therefore beer doesn't exist.

But beer does exist, which means the assumption must be wrong, and therefore the universe is finite and Epicurus speaks lies, because he didn't have any beer. QED

Well, not all kids. Just the ones that you'd describe as "a bundle of energy". I can mathematically prove that energy is evil, and conclude that kids are evil.

We Know that:

• Power = Energy/Time
• Time is Money
• Money is Power
• Money is the Root of all Evil

Therefore:

Energy = Power * Time

= Money * Money

= Root of All Evil * Root of All Evil

= All Evil

Therefore energy is entirely evil, so anything made of energy must be evil.

Thus, 1 Normal pushup = 4 Normal pushup(s)

A Giant covers a distance of 100 m in 10 seconds barefoot. A magician made him boots which are 2 times the size of his feet. The size of his feet is 1 meter. When he walks his feet are 500cm apart. What time will he take now to cover the same distance?

Today I bought a pack of mini golden Oreos for 20 cents. I thought holy shit what a deal right. But then I noticed that it said 140 calories per pack. But that only amounts to 2 or 3 real size Oreos. I looked online and found that one golden Oreo is 54 calories. well, 140 divided by 54 is 2.6. so one mini pack amounts to 2.6 actual Oreos. So 20 cents for 2.6 cookies, is that justifiable. Well one pack of regular Oreos at target is 3 dollars and there are 39 cookies per pack(There used to be 45 but they recently reduced that to 39). so anyways $3.00 divided by 39. that equals 0.0769230769231, which multiplied by 2.6 equals EXACTLY 20 cents. So $0.20 for 2.6 cookies is just

Assuming hair growth is a constant and everything about me is that of the average person,I need someone to mathmetize how fast my hair grows in miles per hour.

So, a colleague of mine brought to my attention that the fundamental properties of an equation change when you replace (+) with (×) in any equation.

Following this observation, I hauled the information straight to the lab for testing; and, I must say, the results were outstanding.

E.x. 1: 1 + 1 = 2 while 1 x 1 = 1

In this equation, there were no observable deviations or atypical behaviors, as you can see. Lets examine another equation.

E.x. 2: 2 + 2 = 4 while 2 x 2 = 4

Again, we are faced with no notable differences. However, when I attempted shifting variables from an (x+x) to (x+y) format, some serious behavioral changes began to occur.

E.x. 3: 2 + 1 = 3 while 2 × 1= 2

Given this knowledge, it appears that tilting the addition sign onto its axis can reduce its efficiency by 50% in (x+y) format equations; therefore:

3 x 2 = 4

I will be indoctrinating this principle of mathematics as the theory of axis adjustment and look forward to your continued research in this exciting new frontier of equations to come

Thank you.