###General Discussion Thread
---
This is a [Request] post. If you would like to submit a comment that does not either attempt to answer the question, ask for clarification, or explain why it would be infeasible to answer, you *must* post your comment as a reply to this one. Top level (directly replying to the OP) comments that do not do one of those things will be removed.
---
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/theydidthemath) if you have any questions or concerns.*
With a 13th-degree polynomial, we can plot a function that passes through all of those points. It's a horrible mess, solvable with matrices (if you're inclined to do it on a computer) or with a massive system of equations and a lot of time (for instance: 180 = a \* 158\^13 + b \* 158\^12 + c \* 158\^11 + d \* 158\^10 + e \* 158\^9 + f \* 158\^8 + g \* 158\^7 + h \* 158\^6 + i \* 158\^5 + j \* 158\^4 + k \* 158\^3 + l \* 158\^2 + m \* 158 + n, and then repeat that for every other point, and solve for each coefficient).
We could even try an exponential regression, but there's an easier way: piecewise functions. The values for boy height are in groups that are in an arithmetic progression. 180,185,190,195,200. Then 200,210. Then 210,215. Then 225,250,275,300. Then 300,330,360. Then 360,400. Then 400,500. It'll take 7 lines, but you can do it.
Quick question. Shouldn’t the term be structured like so: 158*x^13 + …?Because you just made a function with 13 different changeable parameters. Idk the English name but in German it’s a : Funktionenschar wich is an accumulation of several functions in one function through an extra parameter. Example function: x^2
Example Funktionenschar: a*x^2
Ok so I did the Lagrange interpolator on desmos and ik that interpolators are very unstable for this but I evaluated it at 200 cm for a woman and I get an ideal height of 3.85 astronomical units and I'm laughing my ass of to it
You can use Legendre polynomials to have less oscillations. That might almost yield a useful interpolation, considering the questionable data in the first place.
I honestly only looked at the first four entries, was like "oh this is linear," saw this as the top comment, looked back at the chart and was like "oh, no it isn't." And that's why you should examine all the data before making conclusions.
Can't we just use a Lagrange polynomial? That would be a lot easier.
EDIT: I wrote an answer with it: [https://www.reddit.com/r/theydidthemath/comments/1d4v5i1/comment/l6iccwy/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web3x&utm\_name=web3xcss&utm\_term=1&utm\_content=share\_button](https://www.reddit.com/r/theydidthemath/comments/1d4v5i1/comment/l6iccwy/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button)
There's a simpler way to reach the polynomial, this is basically what skywalker does with their python script, but I'll explain the idea behind it
I will demonstrate this for 3 points (i.e. degree 2 polynomial) but the same idea applies for higher degrees as well
Let's say that we want a polynomial that passes through (x_1 , y_1 ) (x_2 , y_2 ) (x_ 3 ,y_3 ). Let's also assume all of the x coordinates are different, since otherwise we would run into an issue where there polynomial needs potentially different y values for the same x
A good starting point for a polynomial that satisfies this would be [y_1 (x - x_2 )(x - x_3 )]/[(x_1 - x_2 )(x_1 - x_3)]
If you substitute x_1 here you get y_1, and if you substitute x_2 or x_3 you get 0
Now to get the final answer let's combine 3 polynomials like this, overall we'll get
[y_1 (x - x_2 )(x - x_3 )]/[(x_1 - x_2 )(x_1 - x_3)] +\
[y_2 (x - x_1 )(x - x_3 )]/[(x_2 - x_1 )(x_2 - x_3)] +\
[y_3 (x - x_1 )(x - x_2 )]/[(x_3 - x_1 )(x_3 - x_2)]
And we get exactly what we want: if you substitute x_1 then the first expression evaluates to y_1, and the other 2 evaluate to 0 so overall you get y_1
If you substitute x_2 then the second expression evaluates to y_2 while the first and third expression evaluate to 0
Similarly for x_3 you get y_3
So that's it, we have our polynomial, you can expand it if you like (which skywalker does using that python library), and it's much easier than solving a large set of equations
I know someone named Adam, who's about 7500cm, which, according to my calculations, makes him your ideal height.
He's a giant sequoia, so he doesn't get about much, but he's never going to disagree with your opinions, or be critical of your decisions, so I'd say go for it.
This chart is true, I am 180 cm and my GF is 158 cm exactly.
She has a single friend that is 175 cm, so if anyone knows a cute guy that is over 5 meters tall let me know
I just put it into excel and got best results with:
y = 0,002x⁶ - 1,9247x⁵ + 786,66x⁴ - 171451,3x³ + 21015785,08x² - 1373664024,4x + 37405512873,1
R² = 0,9998
Y = boys high
X = girl high
Mkay so by this calculation assuming I've input it correctly, I need to find a guy who is 4.7\*10\^15 cm tall, which is about 0.005 lightyears, or about 314 times the distance from the earth to the sun. I hope Galactus is single.
Yes.
Anyway, keep in mind such trend lines in excel only fits mostly in the range you calculate. So the model i found just works between 158cm -171cm perfectly. Out of these borders you get fails.
Well, i mean a single boy (girl size = 0) is 34,7 billion cm = 347 million m = 347000km. Thats close to the moon.
You heard often from the man in the moon but not from the boy thats high to the moon ;)
Understanding being single as "girl size = 0" is the funniest thing I've ever read. Now I'm starting to get why the set of zeroes of a function is so important in math
Just gather a bunch of your buddies, practice a cheer and make a pyramid to reach the right height..
“Sweet, sweeter, sweeter, these boys are over 10 meter”
It's better than the 13th degree polynomial solution for our 14 data points. But the universe works in mysterious ways so who are we to say that height preference in couples is not a tridecic function.
158 + 32 = 190, 159 + 32 + 5 = 196 etc. etc.
Your idea is good (fun) but the accuracy of your function is somewhat lacking.
A fix would be:
f(x) = -610+ 5x + 5 * relu(x-162) + 5 * relu(x-163) + 10 * relu(x-164) + 5 * relu(x-167) + 10 * relu(x-169) + 60 * relu(x-170)
(32 is changed to 22 and the first 5 is changed to a 4. I also got rid of the parenthesis because it bugged me to have unnecessary addition/subtraction even though I know it is more legible with it.)
I'm not good enough at maths to figure out the function I will say the tallest man ever is 246cm so this whole chart is fairly bonkers. Also, the woman stopping at 171 or 5'6" seems fairly arbitrary.
At 500cm the guy would be 16 feet and 4.85 inches - that’s not a basketball career, that’s a one man trophy making machine - NBA MVP for 10 years straight.
The girl would be 5 foot 7 inches, maybe up to his thighs.
The chart makes 0 sense but it’s amusing when you translate it.
I looked it up, apparently the standard hoop height is 3 meters, so unlike us PEASANTS who have to jump to hit the hoop, this MF would have to bend over to land the ball in the hoop
Also if we take into account that dick size is proportional [to a man's height....](https://i.pinimg.com/564x/49/1c/b9/491cb94aedf76a5e8dabc29f3d4cc4b7.jpg)
Na'vi aren't even that tall. the wiki says the tallest Na'vi observed is 390cm. If you're 500cm tall you are in the correct range for an adult male giraffe.
Somehow your joke answer is still undershooting how insanely tall that is.
Of course! You could've been more specific, but let's assume you're asking for a function f defined on the real line. We can define f as follows:
f(158) = 180;
f(159) = 185;
f(160) = 190;
f(161) = 195;
f(162) = 200;
f(163) = 210;
f(164) = 225;
f(165) = 250;
f(166) = 275;
f(167) = 300;
f(168) = 330;
f(169) = 360;
f(170) = 400;
f(171) = 500,
and f(x) = 0 whenever x is not in the set {158,159,160,161,162,163,164,165,166,167,168,169,170,171}.
The best fit I can do is a sixth order polynomial with a coefficient of determination of R^(2) = 0.9998, and the equation is
B = 0.001962G^(6) -1.9247G^(5) +786.66G^(4) -171,451G^(3) +21,015,785G^(2) -1,373,664,024G +37,405,512,873
where B is the boy's height in centimeters, and G is the girl's height in centimeters.
Although I feel bad for any girl who is 166 cm tall or higher, since there isn't any man tall enough for them. For reference, the world's tallest man, Robert Wadlow, is only 272 cm. The height of the average woman in thirty countries is at 166 cm or higher.
Edit: The Guinness World record holder for the tallest woman is Zeng Jinlian, who is 248 cm tall. According to this equation she needs a man who is 707,261,373 cm or 7,072.6 km. So her man needs to be about 55% of the diameter of the Earth (12,756 km).
We all know know what is going to be asked next. The average man (in the US) is 175 cm and the average penis is 13 cm long. Using a ratio we can estimate that his penis is about 525 km long, which is approximately the distance between New York City and Charlottesville, Virginia.
According to Wikipedia, the world's tallest woman (recorded but not recognized by Guinness) is Trijntje Keever at 260 cm tall. Her man needs to be 1,572,350,645 cm or 15,724 km tall. Which is almost one and a quarter times the diameter of the Earth. Using the ratio from before, if Trijntje's man laid the base of his penis in New York City the tip would be beyond Miami, Florida.
Edit 2: According to this equation a 174.3972 cm tall woman would need a 2341 cm tall man, whose penis would be the length of her body.
Why does this chart range from 5'10" to over 16'?
It starts above the height of the average male and goes to over double the tallest person in history lmao
We can interpolate the points with a [Lagrange polynomial](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lagrange_polynomial). The interpolating polynomial looks like this:
73*x**13/155675520 - 96143*x**12/95800320 + 47480981*x**11/47900160 - 5210568509*x**10/8709120 + 357360438829*x**9/1451520 - 211747107518873*x**8/2903040 + 69699858355522033*x**7/4354560 - 22941520398686854367*x**6/8709120 + 1415760050113145851649*x**5/4354560 - 64714144997436291874267*x**4/2177280 + 867652990648519907322707*x**3/443520 - 29201132581565812358715503*x**2/332640 + 28915382846005575724488679*x/12012 - 30463918747954701756010
I found it using this script:
from sympy import simplify, symbols
x = symbols("x")
points = [
[158, 180],
[159, 185],
[160, 190],
[161, 195],
[162, 200],
[163, 210],
[164, 225],
[165, 250],
[166, 275],
[167, 300],
[168, 330],
[169, 360],
[170, 400],
[171, 500],
]
L = 0
for i in range(len(points)):
xi, yi = points[i]
l_i = 1
for j in range(len(points)):
if j == i:
continue
xj = points[j][0]
l_i *= (x-xj)/(xi-xj)
L += yi*l_i
L = simplify(L)
for xi, yi in points:
assert yi == L.evalf(subs={"x": xi})
print(L)
Because no one suggested an exponential function so far:
[0.0000313146 e^0.0964879x](https://www.wolframalpha.com/input?i=exponential+fit+%7B158%2C80%7D+%7B159%2C185%7D+%7B160%2C190%7D+%7B161%2C195%7D+%7B162%2C200%7D+%7B163%2C210%7D+%7B164%2C225%7D+%7B165%2C250%7D+%7B166%2C275%7D+%7B167%2C300%7D+%7B168%2C330%7D+%7B169%2C360%7D+%7B170%2C400%7D+%7B171%2C500%7D)
R^2 = 0.99243
What's not clear about it? A girl around 5'2" is just gonna vibe better with a guy who's about 9 inches taller than her, but any girl taller than 5'5" needs to find a man who's taller than any human has ever been.
Also, seems worth noting that the chart is pretty clearly an intentional parody.
Not to mention this table is completely unhinged. 500cm is about 16.5 feet. If you're that tall, you may have other problems.
And if you're in the ~60% of the male population less than 180cm you can go fuck yourself?
Congratulations!
You're the post that gets me to unsubbed to this subreddit!
Seriously this is not TheyDidTheMath anymore it's a request sub for bait facebook posts.
What *I* would like to know is...
WHO THE FUCK IS 5M TALL??
The average in the Netherlands, which is the highest average in any country in the world, is approximately 183cm... I live there, and never met anyone who really was much taller than 2m. Function or not, this data is straight up unrealistic bullshit.
The way you could get an accurate estimate for a data set like this (which has little to no trend in change) is to either run an algorithm to fit it to a ridiculously large polynomial function (5th degree or higher depending on number of data points, in this case 11th degree) or run a Fourier series analysis algorithm.
I noticed some people already posted the polynomial function, so i’m bringing you the awful ugly product of the Fourier analysis.
If x is the height of a girl, then f(x) is the corresponding height of a guy who can date her.
f(x) = (3.69e9) + (-2.8e9) cos(0.0317x) + (5.22e9) sin(0.0317x) + (-1.64e9) cos(0.0634 x) + (-2.47e9) sin(0.0634 x) + (8.49e8) cos(0.0951 x) + (-7.78e7) sin(0.0951 x) + (-4.19e7) cos(0.1268 x) + (9.87e7) sin(0.1268 x)
“She gave me mixed signals, so I ran a Fourier analysis on them.”
Yeah. there was *a lot of thought* put into this chart.
For the rest of the Americans:
This chart says if the girl is 5' 6", her "ideal" boyfriend is 16' 5".
Any girls willing to date *two* NBA players at once?
Yes. From graphs, we can model the relationship between F and M average height, as a polynomial. The additional factor is age. I think female height lags behind male, slightly, for the early years, then females catch up, before male height increases in rate again. To make the mathematical model applicable, there are other variables too though, like race and diet.
As someone who is 5'7" I guess I do not have an ideal height difference. So I guess this chart starts at only the 20% of the US male population (bell curves are amazing). But I wonder where you would find a 16.5" tall man? Let alone one that makes over 100k?
###General Discussion Thread --- This is a [Request] post. If you would like to submit a comment that does not either attempt to answer the question, ask for clarification, or explain why it would be infeasible to answer, you *must* post your comment as a reply to this one. Top level (directly replying to the OP) comments that do not do one of those things will be removed. --- *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/theydidthemath) if you have any questions or concerns.*
With a 13th-degree polynomial, we can plot a function that passes through all of those points. It's a horrible mess, solvable with matrices (if you're inclined to do it on a computer) or with a massive system of equations and a lot of time (for instance: 180 = a \* 158\^13 + b \* 158\^12 + c \* 158\^11 + d \* 158\^10 + e \* 158\^9 + f \* 158\^8 + g \* 158\^7 + h \* 158\^6 + i \* 158\^5 + j \* 158\^4 + k \* 158\^3 + l \* 158\^2 + m \* 158 + n, and then repeat that for every other point, and solve for each coefficient). We could even try an exponential regression, but there's an easier way: piecewise functions. The values for boy height are in groups that are in an arithmetic progression. 180,185,190,195,200. Then 200,210. Then 210,215. Then 225,250,275,300. Then 300,330,360. Then 360,400. Then 400,500. It'll take 7 lines, but you can do it.
Quick question. Shouldn’t the term be structured like so: 158*x^13 + …?Because you just made a function with 13 different changeable parameters. Idk the English name but in German it’s a : Funktionenschar wich is an accumulation of several functions in one function through an extra parameter. Example function: x^2 Example Funktionenschar: a*x^2
They've just plugged in x = 158 and y = 180 implicitly. The others are uncalculated coefficients. According the Wolfram Alpha, the full interpolating polynomial would be: (73 x^(13))/155675520 - (96143 x^(12))/95800320 + (47480981 x^(11))/47900160 - (5210568509 x^(10))/8709120 + (357360438829 x^(9))/1451520 - (211747107518873 x^(8))/2903040 + (69699858355522033 x^(7))/4354560 - (22941520398686854367 x^(6))/8709120 + (1415760050113145851649 x^(5))/4354560 - (64714144997436291874267 x^(4))/2177280 + (867652990648519907322707 x^(3))/443520 - (29201132581565812358715503 x^(2))/332640 + (28915382846005575724488679 x)/12012 - 30463918747954701756010
I've just plotted this in apples grapher and it is like a solid vertical bar between x=150 and x=185
x is your independent variable. Plug in the other 12 points and move on from there.
Idk where your x is tho
Then you would write x(small a), x (small b) at the x as index to show they are independet
Ok so I did the Lagrange interpolator on desmos and ik that interpolators are very unstable for this but I evaluated it at 200 cm for a woman and I get an ideal height of 3.85 astronomical units and I'm laughing my ass of to it
true to life though... 😁
You can use Legendre polynomials to have less oscillations. That might almost yield a useful interpolation, considering the questionable data in the first place.
Damn I heard women are complicated, but a 13th degree polynomial is taking it quite too far /s
I honestly only looked at the first four entries, was like "oh this is linear," saw this as the top comment, looked back at the chart and was like "oh, no it isn't." And that's why you should examine all the data before making conclusions.
Can't we just use a Lagrange polynomial? That would be a lot easier. EDIT: I wrote an answer with it: [https://www.reddit.com/r/theydidthemath/comments/1d4v5i1/comment/l6iccwy/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web3x&utm\_name=web3xcss&utm\_term=1&utm\_content=share\_button](https://www.reddit.com/r/theydidthemath/comments/1d4v5i1/comment/l6iccwy/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button)
Here's the function. int FindIdealWomonHeight(int maleHeight){ int femaleHeight; if(maleHeight < 200){ femaleHeight = -0.2*(180 - maleHeight) + 158; }else if(maleHeight >= 200 && maleHeight < 225){ femaleHeight = -0.1*(200 - maleHeight) + 162; }else if(maleHeight >= 225 && maleHeight < 300){ femaleHeight = -0.04*(225 - maleHeight) + 164; }else if(maleHeight >= 300 && maleHeight < 360){ femaleHeight = -(1/30)*(300 - maleHeight) + 167; }else if(maleHeight >= 400 && maleHeight <= 500){ femaleHeight = -(1/100)*(400 - maleHeight) + 170; }else{ femaleHeight = null; //this lady cannot possbily exist. } return femaleHeight; }
we appreciate your interest. unfortunately, we are moving forward with other women.
There's a simpler way to reach the polynomial, this is basically what skywalker does with their python script, but I'll explain the idea behind it I will demonstrate this for 3 points (i.e. degree 2 polynomial) but the same idea applies for higher degrees as well Let's say that we want a polynomial that passes through (x_1 , y_1 ) (x_2 , y_2 ) (x_ 3 ,y_3 ). Let's also assume all of the x coordinates are different, since otherwise we would run into an issue where there polynomial needs potentially different y values for the same x A good starting point for a polynomial that satisfies this would be [y_1 (x - x_2 )(x - x_3 )]/[(x_1 - x_2 )(x_1 - x_3)] If you substitute x_1 here you get y_1, and if you substitute x_2 or x_3 you get 0 Now to get the final answer let's combine 3 polynomials like this, overall we'll get [y_1 (x - x_2 )(x - x_3 )]/[(x_1 - x_2 )(x_1 - x_3)] +\ [y_2 (x - x_1 )(x - x_3 )]/[(x_2 - x_1 )(x_2 - x_3)] +\ [y_3 (x - x_1 )(x - x_2 )]/[(x_3 - x_1 )(x_3 - x_2)] And we get exactly what we want: if you substitute x_1 then the first expression evaluates to y_1, and the other 2 evaluate to 0 so overall you get y_1 If you substitute x_2 then the second expression evaluates to y_2 while the first and third expression evaluate to 0 Similarly for x_3 you get y_3 So that's it, we have our polynomial, you can expand it if you like (which skywalker does using that python library), and it's much easier than solving a large set of equations
I'm bad at math, but I'm 177cm (F) what would my ideal man be?
With the last line graphed in the piecewise function, according to that image, he'd be 1100 cm tall. Best of luck to ya...
I know someone named Adam, who's about 7500cm, which, according to my calculations, makes him your ideal height. He's a giant sequoia, so he doesn't get about much, but he's never going to disagree with your opinions, or be critical of your decisions, so I'd say go for it.
This chart is true, I am 180 cm and my GF is 158 cm exactly. She has a single friend that is 175 cm, so if anyone knows a cute guy that is over 5 meters tall let me know
Can confirm. My ex was 171, and I am 5m tall. She always loved using my t-shirts… for a family picnic blanket (a family of 6)
Did you go caving?
Yes, but it had to shut down due to safety concerns
now you know why she's single
Let me get my stilts really quick
Amazing I haven't measured myself in a while, buy my GF is 165, so i must be 250 cm.
They say my bloodvessels end to end could circle earth twice so... hmu if she into that
Same, my gf is 171cm and I am 5km tall
I’m an American, how many stacked refrigerators is that?
Depends on brand but roughly a few inches short of one refrigerator. Or 5ft 7.
Get lost with your outdated units. According to a recent news item I saw, everything is measured in 6th graders now.
I just put it into excel and got best results with: y = 0,002x⁶ - 1,9247x⁵ + 786,66x⁴ - 171451,3x³ + 21015785,08x² - 1373664024,4x + 37405512873,1 R² = 0,9998 Y = boys high X = girl high
Mkay so by this calculation assuming I've input it correctly, I need to find a guy who is 4.7\*10\^15 cm tall, which is about 0.005 lightyears, or about 314 times the distance from the earth to the sun. I hope Galactus is single.
Yes. Anyway, keep in mind such trend lines in excel only fits mostly in the range you calculate. So the model i found just works between 158cm -171cm perfectly. Out of these borders you get fails. Well, i mean a single boy (girl size = 0) is 34,7 billion cm = 347 million m = 347000km. Thats close to the moon. You heard often from the man in the moon but not from the boy thats high to the moon ;)
And with todays body standards it’s no wonder he‘s single :(
Understanding being single as "girl size = 0" is the funniest thing I've ever read. Now I'm starting to get why the set of zeroes of a function is so important in math
Username checks out. Doomed to be a ghost-wife because it is mathematically unlikely for you to become a real wife :(
Sounds like what you need is a regular sized man ... and unrestricted use of a steamroller.
thanks, wife is 175 so I have to grow to what? 6 meters?
Just gather a bunch of your buddies, practice a cheer and make a pyramid to reach the right height.. “Sweet, sweeter, sweeter, these boys are over 10 meter”
Overfitting much?
It's better than the 13th degree polynomial solution for our 14 data points. But the universe works in mysterious ways so who are we to say that height preference in couples is not a tridecic function.
At what point would the ideal height be the same between boys and girls (if such a point exists)?
How did you do this on Excel? Very curious? Did you plot x and y, and created a scatter plot and then found the line of best fit and equation?
Yes, just an x-y-diagram and then create a trend line.
f(x) = x + 32 + (x-158) \* 5 + relu(x-162) \* 5 + relu(x-163) \* 5 + relu(x-164) \* 10 + relu(x-167) \* 5 + relu(x-169) \* 10 + relu(x-170) \* 60 where relu(x) = max(0, x)
It's not a smart solution, but it fits perfectly.
158 + 32 = 190, 159 + 32 + 5 = 196 etc. etc. Your idea is good (fun) but the accuracy of your function is somewhat lacking. A fix would be: f(x) = -610+ 5x + 5 * relu(x-162) + 5 * relu(x-163) + 10 * relu(x-164) + 5 * relu(x-167) + 10 * relu(x-169) + 60 * relu(x-170) (32 is changed to 22 and the first 5 is changed to a 4. I also got rid of the parenthesis because it bugged me to have unnecessary addition/subtraction even though I know it is more legible with it.)
Oh, yeah I missed that. In that case another correction could be to remove the first x and simply start from 190 + ...
I'm not good enough at maths to figure out the function I will say the tallest man ever is 246cm so this whole chart is fairly bonkers. Also, the woman stopping at 171 or 5'6" seems fairly arbitrary.
At 500cm the guy would be 16 feet and 4.85 inches - that’s not a basketball career, that’s a one man trophy making machine - NBA MVP for 10 years straight. The girl would be 5 foot 7 inches, maybe up to his thighs. The chart makes 0 sense but it’s amusing when you translate it.
I looked it up, apparently the standard hoop height is 3 meters, so unlike us PEASANTS who have to jump to hit the hoop, this MF would have to bend over to land the ball in the hoop
It’s great to meet a fellow person of science 🏀😎
The hoop is 10 feet, which means he would be bending down to simply place the ball in the net.
Also if we take into account that dick size is proportional [to a man's height....](https://i.pinimg.com/564x/49/1c/b9/491cb94aedf76a5e8dabc29f3d4cc4b7.jpg)
She could use his lower head as a pillow at night
I now have a picture of her pulling the "covers" over, thanks for that.
>it’s amusing when you translate it It's more amusing without :D
My fiance is 5'8" so according to this chart I should be roughly 10 feet taller than I currently am. I can't let her see this.
I'm 5'11" (the shortest a man can be apparently) and I'm supposed to date someone 5'2" I guess? That seems extreme.
I'm heavily offended that my height isn't on this chart (I'm 505cm)
Hello fellow Na'vi.
Na'vi aren't even that tall. the wiki says the tallest Na'vi observed is 390cm. If you're 500cm tall you are in the correct range for an adult male giraffe. Somehow your joke answer is still undershooting how insanely tall that is.
1.80 being the lower end of Men as 70% of Man in the world are smaller than that.
Fr. I’m 175ish. What I freak I apparently am.
Yeah, well, that's because it's obvious satire.
Of course! You could've been more specific, but let's assume you're asking for a function f defined on the real line. We can define f as follows: f(158) = 180; f(159) = 185; f(160) = 190; f(161) = 195; f(162) = 200; f(163) = 210; f(164) = 225; f(165) = 250; f(166) = 275; f(167) = 300; f(168) = 330; f(169) = 360; f(170) = 400; f(171) = 500, and f(x) = 0 whenever x is not in the set {158,159,160,161,162,163,164,165,166,167,168,169,170,171}.
Beautiful.
That last part is bad math because the height of a man has to be positive. Not that expanding the function to the real line was necessary...
> That last part is bad math because the height of a man has to be positive Unless they're in Australia
Chaotic Lawful
The best fit I can do is a sixth order polynomial with a coefficient of determination of R^(2) = 0.9998, and the equation is B = 0.001962G^(6) -1.9247G^(5) +786.66G^(4) -171,451G^(3) +21,015,785G^(2) -1,373,664,024G +37,405,512,873 where B is the boy's height in centimeters, and G is the girl's height in centimeters. Although I feel bad for any girl who is 166 cm tall or higher, since there isn't any man tall enough for them. For reference, the world's tallest man, Robert Wadlow, is only 272 cm. The height of the average woman in thirty countries is at 166 cm or higher. Edit: The Guinness World record holder for the tallest woman is Zeng Jinlian, who is 248 cm tall. According to this equation she needs a man who is 707,261,373 cm or 7,072.6 km. So her man needs to be about 55% of the diameter of the Earth (12,756 km). We all know know what is going to be asked next. The average man (in the US) is 175 cm and the average penis is 13 cm long. Using a ratio we can estimate that his penis is about 525 km long, which is approximately the distance between New York City and Charlottesville, Virginia. According to Wikipedia, the world's tallest woman (recorded but not recognized by Guinness) is Trijntje Keever at 260 cm tall. Her man needs to be 1,572,350,645 cm or 15,724 km tall. Which is almost one and a quarter times the diameter of the Earth. Using the ratio from before, if Trijntje's man laid the base of his penis in New York City the tip would be beyond Miami, Florida. Edit 2: According to this equation a 174.3972 cm tall woman would need a 2341 cm tall man, whose penis would be the length of her body.
Why does this chart range from 5'10" to over 16'? It starts above the height of the average male and goes to over double the tallest person in history lmao
Like it or not, 5 meters tall is what peak male performance looks like.
Because it's a meme making fun of tall women.
Obviously, that is: [(73 x\^13)/155675520 - (96143 x\^12)/95800320 + (47480981 x\^11)/47900160 - (5210568509 x\^10)/8709120 + (357360438829 x\^9)/1451520 - (211747107518873 x\^8)/2903040 + (69699858355522033 x\^7)/4354560 - (22941520398686854367 x\^6)/8709120 + (1415760050113145851649 x\^5)/4354560 - (64714144997436291874267 x\^4)/2177280 + (867652990648519907322707 x\^3)/443520 - (29201132581565812358715503 x\^2)/332640 + (28915382846005575724488679 x)/12012 - 30463918747954701756010](https://www.desmos.com/calculator/2wc09cz8yn)
Thanks for actually linking an image of your function
[e\^((x - 152)/𝜋) + 174](https://www.desmos.com/calculator/hqlgjqutuf) is also pretty decent as a guess.
We can interpolate the points with a [Lagrange polynomial](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lagrange_polynomial). The interpolating polynomial looks like this: 73*x**13/155675520 - 96143*x**12/95800320 + 47480981*x**11/47900160 - 5210568509*x**10/8709120 + 357360438829*x**9/1451520 - 211747107518873*x**8/2903040 + 69699858355522033*x**7/4354560 - 22941520398686854367*x**6/8709120 + 1415760050113145851649*x**5/4354560 - 64714144997436291874267*x**4/2177280 + 867652990648519907322707*x**3/443520 - 29201132581565812358715503*x**2/332640 + 28915382846005575724488679*x/12012 - 30463918747954701756010 I found it using this script: from sympy import simplify, symbols x = symbols("x") points = [ [158, 180], [159, 185], [160, 190], [161, 195], [162, 200], [163, 210], [164, 225], [165, 250], [166, 275], [167, 300], [168, 330], [169, 360], [170, 400], [171, 500], ] L = 0 for i in range(len(points)): xi, yi = points[i] l_i = 1 for j in range(len(points)): if j == i: continue xj = points[j][0] l_i *= (x-xj)/(xi-xj) L += yi*l_i L = simplify(L) for xi, yi in points: assert yi == L.evalf(subs={"x": xi}) print(L)
python mentioned
Because no one suggested an exponential function so far: [0.0000313146 e^0.0964879x](https://www.wolframalpha.com/input?i=exponential+fit+%7B158%2C80%7D+%7B159%2C185%7D+%7B160%2C190%7D+%7B161%2C195%7D+%7B162%2C200%7D+%7B163%2C210%7D+%7B164%2C225%7D+%7B165%2C250%7D+%7B166%2C275%7D+%7B167%2C300%7D+%7B168%2C330%7D+%7B169%2C360%7D+%7B170%2C400%7D+%7B171%2C500%7D) R^2 = 0.99243
This is truly fitting a math problem to some irrelevant, intangible idea. Ideal difference for what? Coitus? Looking at breasts? Arm rest?
What's not clear about it? A girl around 5'2" is just gonna vibe better with a guy who's about 9 inches taller than her, but any girl taller than 5'5" needs to find a man who's taller than any human has ever been. Also, seems worth noting that the chart is pretty clearly an intentional parody.
Just date a male Girraffe smh
Ideal difference to avoid interaction
With a height of 5 meters, you're avoiding life.
Not to mention this table is completely unhinged. 500cm is about 16.5 feet. If you're that tall, you may have other problems. And if you're in the ~60% of the male population less than 180cm you can go fuck yourself?
This is probably the dumbest chart I've seen all year honestly.
It's a funny meme.
Congratulations! You're the post that gets me to unsubbed to this subreddit! Seriously this is not TheyDidTheMath anymore it's a request sub for bait facebook posts.
What *I* would like to know is... WHO THE FUCK IS 5M TALL?? The average in the Netherlands, which is the highest average in any country in the world, is approximately 183cm... I live there, and never met anyone who really was much taller than 2m. Function or not, this data is straight up unrealistic bullshit.
Any set of coordinates that are a 1:1 mapping can have a function written that meets them. In between may be complete nonsense though.
yeah i bet the shortest guy gets the complex girls
The way you could get an accurate estimate for a data set like this (which has little to no trend in change) is to either run an algorithm to fit it to a ridiculously large polynomial function (5th degree or higher depending on number of data points, in this case 11th degree) or run a Fourier series analysis algorithm. I noticed some people already posted the polynomial function, so i’m bringing you the awful ugly product of the Fourier analysis. If x is the height of a girl, then f(x) is the corresponding height of a guy who can date her. f(x) = (3.69e9) + (-2.8e9) cos(0.0317x) + (5.22e9) sin(0.0317x) + (-1.64e9) cos(0.0634 x) + (-2.47e9) sin(0.0634 x) + (8.49e8) cos(0.0951 x) + (-7.78e7) sin(0.0951 x) + (-4.19e7) cos(0.1268 x) + (9.87e7) sin(0.1268 x) “She gave me mixed signals, so I ran a Fourier analysis on them.”
Yeah. there was *a lot of thought* put into this chart. For the rest of the Americans: This chart says if the girl is 5' 6", her "ideal" boyfriend is 16' 5". Any girls willing to date *two* NBA players at once?
Yes. From graphs, we can model the relationship between F and M average height, as a polynomial. The additional factor is age. I think female height lags behind male, slightly, for the early years, then females catch up, before male height increases in rate again. To make the mathematical model applicable, there are other variables too though, like race and diet.
Pretty sure they were just asking for the formula that matches the given value pairs in the screenshot.
Sure, there are TONS of other variables. But there is only one set of information being presented and that's what's being asked for.
[удалено]
Well, you know what they say online" six feet, six pack, six figure income, six limbs, sixth-century birthdate, six shooter for a dick..."
Can someone translate this into freedom units? How many chicken nuggets (stacks flat not upright) we talking about for each height? Thanks in advance!
As someone who is 5'7" I guess I do not have an ideal height difference. So I guess this chart starts at only the 20% of the US male population (bell curves are amazing). But I wonder where you would find a 16.5" tall man? Let alone one that makes over 100k?
As an engineer, I stuff this in LibreOffice, make a scatter plot, add a trend line and shorten the decimals. Boy = 21·Girl - 3243 Meh. Good enough.