I think you may mean "not giving a fuck squared." The square root, I believe, would mean a *smaller* amount of giving a fuck. I could be wrong. https://t.co/7lzylpInVV
— Stephen King (@StephenKing) July 17, 2024
Ah, wait! Rowling writes back: "But I was going for a fraction of a fuck. I barely give a tenth of a fuck. So I stand by my square root. What we really need here is a certified fuckologist."
Perfect. JK won. Reeled him in and won. Good for King, though, for expressing his idea with respect.
ADDED: Actually, JK's explanation — that she was talking about fractions (and not 0, as I assumed) — put King in the right. As Matt says in the comments: "King is correct. The square root of 1/4 is 1/2. For numbers less than 1 the square root makes it larger. 1/2 * 1/2 = 1/4."
पोस्ट्स
१२४ टिप्पण्या:
“certified fuckologist”. Sadly, Dr Ruth has left the building
I despise the Harry Potter books,but that response from JR Rowling earns her a big kiss from me.
If "not giving a fuck" is a negative concept, then the square root of not giving a fuck is complex.
"Seems to me, if you don't give a fuck, you're already at zero."
I think you can quantify how much you don't give a fuck, as opposed to how much of a fuck you give. In which case, King would be right.
It can be argued either way.
I don't give a fuck to the tenth power about King.
He may appear rational in this exchange. But it's an anomaly.
He's wrong. She gives an asymptotic fuck approaching abstinence.
JK Rowling has sold more books and has a lot more money than Stephen King so yes, he would be respectful.
Jesus, King, you tried mansplaining math to the writer of Harry Potter and got your rear handed to you. Sublime comedy.
Amazing that two wordsmiths need to use a cliche like "Dont give a Fuck" to express their thoughts. Anyway, one cant go less than zero. Numbers less than zero are an abstraction - one cant have less than zero objects in reality.
But then what does "Give a fuck" actually mean. "Fuck" mean sexual intercourse. Its like "I dont' give a shit" which means what exactly? You value your "shit" but in this case don't?
But points for the wordplay. Btw, Hemingway wrote that novelists made bad political theorists because they are "feelers" rather than "Thinkers".
Some people believe volume is important.
But it is not. Not Giving a fuck is about spending less attention on banality.
King is just another person that thinks he is smarter than he really is. Rowling > King.
Good example of how authors have to deal with appropriately nitpicky editors.
Square root makes things bigger below 1.0, smaller above 1.0. Squaring makes things smaller below 1.0, and bigger above 1.0. In any case there's a units problem because the square and the square root don't have the same units as the thing you start with.
What she wants is not giving a millifuck, otherwise called a milligivafuck.
Square root of not giving X is not the same as not giving a square root of X. King's math is correct.
Girl with a ponytail... a boy offers an awkward gesture. Do the math. King loves Rowling.
Fuck Steven King. I've never read any of this books or watched any of his movies. He's just another sick Leftist. Fuck him!
"The square root, I believe, would mean a *smaller* amount of giving a fuck. I could be wrong."
If the number you are starting with is between 0 and 1, then the square root is a greater number. Also, technically square roots have two values of opposite signs (e.g., square root of 4 is +2 and -2; people lost points for neglecting that when I was taking calculus classes).
you can use farthing
when has king really challenged any conventional opinion, unlike rowling on the female identity issue,
I read some of his work, like the stand, which was somewhat prophetic, firestarter, the dead zone, that was back when the deep state was bad, right, but his hersute werewolfishness has been conventional,
"I think you can quantify how much you don't give a fuck, as opposed to how much of a fuck you give. In which case, King would be right."
Conceivably, but not the basis for criticizing someone else's writing.
I enjoy writer-on-writer action, but he didn't go at it aggressively and he wasn't funny. She was funny both times. He seemed to just be in a lazy mode of targeting the person the person his group has identified as a target.
She used to give a fuck >= 1, but as she squares her roots, gives less of a fuck. That said, she will have to concede to King at unity, where fucking is monogamous.
I'm not a certified mathematician, but something is lost in the algebra. It's not about the amount of 'give a f*cl=k', it's about not giving a f*ck.
And the square root of 'not giving a f*ck' sounds like it's going to be a complex number. Onward, then, to imaginary numbers as differential equations !
King lost, and it was glorious. For King, 2 + 2 = 5.
Perhaps King is imagining fucks, where fucking becomes less wholesome, and downright unnatural.
Yah, lazy swing by King. Go back to reading books at the Sox game…
Blogger James K said..."If "not giving a fuck" is a negative concept, then the square root of not giving a fuck is complex."
Thread winner.
I couldn't care less v. I could care less.
I'm chuckling at this exchange, it seems to be in good humor. Well done to both of them.
King was right he could be wrong…
Blogger James K said..."If "not giving a fuck" is a negative concept, then the square root of not giving a fuck is complex."
Thread winner.
Isn’t it the difference between “not giving a fuck” and not giving a “fuck”? If it’s the first, SK is correct. If it’s the latter, JK is right.
The square root of one is one. So if she did not give a fuck (singular, one), then she's at the same giving place, as the square root of one fuck is one fuck. Same answer if she gave no fucks (zero). Square root of no fucks is no fucks.
I do like the cut of that Rowlings lady's jib. Refusal to bow to the crazed trans mob and forcefully articulating her core principles which also exposes trannie inanity as incompatible with women's rights, basic decency, and reality.
King is correct. The square root of 1/4 is 1/2. For numbers less than 1 the square root makes it larger. 1/2 * 1/2 = 1/4
I was told there would be no math.
I have never knowingly read anything by Stephen King (I understand he has published under other names).
I believe the same calculus applies to rat's asses.
While we’re on the topic maybe you can help me with Pink. I can go for miles if you know what I mean Well, I don’t know what she means. I mean if she’s implying endurance her units should be time not distance. It looks like the 12 parsecs problem…
As it happens, my thesis was on this very topic.
The square root of any given fuck is simply √ꜰ, or 1 Radical Fuck (RF).
But the square root of an ungiven, or "empty," fuck cannot be calculated, it can only be postulated as one Theoretical Empty Radical Fuck (TERF).
King is right. The "not" turns the values around. The square root of not giving a fuck would be a smaller quantity of not giving a fuck (i.e., giving more fucks). What she wanted was the square of not giving a fuck--really not giving a fuck.
But "square root" sounds better and it made this great little exchange possible.
I've never read a J.K. Rowling novel. All I know is they are highly successful in a monetary sense. As for their quality as literature, I am as ignorant as they come, but I can hope they are superior to the drivel cranked out by Mr. King as that is a low bar to vault.
order of Zero not to be confused with Zorro
I really don't give a fuck either way.
Nancy, slightly off topic, but I'm curious how and why you would despise the Harry Potter books (assuming it's not for arch-conservative religious avoidance of the witchcraftery)
Another entry in the (unlinkable!) OED.
As for their quality as literature,
=================
children chose to read them without cliffnotes and able to discuss
The same calculus applies to rat's asses.
Matt said...
King is correct. The square root of 1/4 is 1/2. For numbers less than 1 the square root makes it larger. 1/2 * 1/2 = 1/4
I would posit that fucks are an integer by definition and inference.
You don't give a quarter of a fuck.
You give 2 fucks. Ten fucks. All of the fucks in the world. Etc.
You don't give 1 and 1/2 fucks either. Too many words.
Integer.
Once you go below one the square root is larger than the square of the number.
Squared: 0.1^2 = 0.01
Square root: 0.1^-2=0.316
pacwest said...
I really don't give a fuck either way.
Integer.
Perhaps she was aiming at the distilled essence of not giving a fuck. Whenever possible I like to help J.K. Rowling to find the right words.....I've never read a book by either author, but their books have been made into some pretty good movies....I wonder who gives the least fucks: King in regards to Trump supporters or Rowling in regards to tran fans.
Matt said...
King is correct. The square root of 1/4 is 1/2. For numbers less than 1 the square root makes it larger. 1/2 * 1/2 = 1/4
Fucks are clearly integers.
I give negative fucks about Stephen King.
King writes from the point of view of the rumor-monger, one who delights in airing another's dirty linen. His heroes are all just the author himself as a precocious child, as an isolated adult, as the noble everyman drowning in a sea of commonplace corruption. His villains are the small-town big fish he despises. His monsters are the avengers. Ho-hum. Read one, you've read them all.
I'd say she's gone less than don't give a fuck. Don't give a fuck is 0 fucks given. Less than 0 puts you into negative numbers. Assuming she is now at -1 fucks given, and then taking the square root of -1, well she's now at 1i fucks that she gives.
That means if you think she gives a fuck about any of this, you are imagining things.
Never go full fucks; always give no fucks.
Narciso,
Are you perhaps going for the Franklinesque metaphor of something not being worth a "FART-HING"?
My opinion about Kings political thinking.
OT but remember to follow Ben's commandment "fart for liberty and fart proudly!" (Quote approximate)
John Henry
"I enjoy writer-on-writer action:
Ann, you may want to rephase that or maybe it was intentional on your part.
Giving one or more fucks is caring. The square root of caring is less fucks. Rowling is addresding the amplitude of real, rational fucks with a positive attitude.
I kind of wish both of them would just go away.
Everything means less than zero.
hes a conventional lefty, I think the Stand could have done with more editing,
i values are hard to calculate,
Althouse writes, "Help me with the math here."
Notice how rapidly the slope changes between between (0,0) and (1,1).
Is a “fuck” a variable or a unit of measure?
Suppose it’s a variable:
Let fuck = 625
Sqrt(fuck) = 25 is correct.
But suppose
Fuck = 625 square feet (sqft)
Sqrt(fuck) is not 25 sqft; it is 25 ft.
Alvarez Guedes the guajiro, roughly hillbilly reconteur, had a whole routine about invective,
Other than "The Stand" and "The Gunslinger" series. It's the same storey over and over.
Two authors whose creations concern imaginary worlds bickering over the semiotics of imaginary numbers.
Too meta for me, mate.
If Quaestor had a dog in this fight, it would be a bitch.
If "not giving a fuck" is a negative concept, then the square root of not giving a fuck is complex.
If she gives NEGATIVE fucks, the square root is actually imaginary:
For all x < 0, sqrt(x) = sqrt(abs(x)) * i
It's complex too, but only trivially.
Just don't divide by zero.
That will give you an exception.
Blogger rehajm said...
“While we’re on the topic maybe you can help me with Pink. I can go for miles if you know what I mean Well, I don’t know what she means. I mean if she’s implying endurance her units should be time not distance. It looks like the 12 parsecs problem…”
I dunno if it helps, but in the video for the song she is trying on a succession of clothes when she sings that line. And she ends up switching clothes yet again before entering the club.
Clearly she would go for miles just to find the right cute outfit to go clubbing that night.
And shout out to the guy wearing a Peter Warwick Bengals jersey. That did not age well.
Yes- the square root of zero fucks to give is still zero fucks to give. The square of zero fucks to give is still zero fucks to give. It appears that King was trying for a slap down but didn't understand the role of zero in what Rowling wrote. Perhaps she didn't either but she still wins here.
Let’s accept J.K. Rowling at her word that she gives around 1/10 of a fuck. 1/10 is the square root of 1/100. 1/10 is a larger amount of fuck giving than 1/100. Stephen King would appear to have a point.
However, Rowling expressed her square root in terms of “not giving a fuck”. To check the math, we would need to know how to compute the not giving a fuck value from the giving a fuck value of 1/10, which would require the fuckologist.
A hemidemisemiquaver of a fuck.
Less than that, actually.
(1/2)**2 == 1/4
Rusty writes, "Other than 'The Stand'.... It's the same story over and over."
I would include The Stand among the others. Granted the scope is presented as global rather than his typical backwoods Maine smallness, nevertheless, I detect the same shopworn archetypes and the same banal morality play at work, as for "The Gunfighter" series, no interest, no opinion.
Left Bank Wins…
Fucks are obviously integers.
rhhardin settled the issue: there is a units problem so you can't compare F*s given versus its square or square root. They aren't the same category of thing.
So the whole exchange between King and Rowling is pointless because it doesn't make any sense.
It's not meant to be taken literally. It refers to all manufacturers of dairy products.
To make rhhardin's point even clearer:
Say something is 3 feet long.
3 feet squared is 9 square feet.
Is 9 square feet more than or less than 3 feet?
The question doesn't make sense. You can't even ask the question.
She's so much better at X than the idiots who come at her. She took the "exponentially" modifier to a new level of verbal battle.
If you have a negative level of give a fuck, the square root leaves you with a give a fuck that is completely imaginary.
Math is hard....
Rowling writes back: "But I was going for a fraction of a fuck. I barely give a tenth of a fuck. So I stand by my square root. What we really need here is a certified fuckologist."
As noted upthread by Mark Bridger, noted fuckologist Dr. Ruth is no longer available to consult, and I should add that doctors William Masters and Virginia Johnson are also gone.
It gives me no pleasure to write this, because I admire Rowling as a person and regard King as a despicable human being, but commentator Steve is right. For numbers between zero and one, the square root of a number is larger than the number, and the square of a number is smaller. To get to a tenth of a fuck by using the square root operation, you have to start with one one-hundredth of a fuck.
If she hadn’t added what she did Roeling would be on more solid ground, because zero squared = zero = square root of zero.
I think smaller is what she was going for.
Well, in scientific terms, none/nothing is not a real value. The most you can claim is that the value is below the minimum level of detection. A square root is an OK expression for integers, though it trends to 1 and sticks there, but it gets odd below that. So, if the minimum detectable level of fucks is 9, she's saying if you could measure at 3 she still wouldn't care.
If you take "I don't give a fuck" literally, then the article "a" is operative, equal to one (i.e. a soda, a car, etc.). Therefore if the number of fucks not given equals one, it follows that both the square and the square root of one are also one.
Conclusion: don't take humor literally, take it figuratively. Or whatever. I don't really give a fuck.
"Is a fuck a variable or a unit of measure?"
Fuck is both a noun and a verb, whereas a variable and a unit are both nouns. I can give two cents (a noun), but I cannot give an is (a verb). However, given the unsettled nature of fuck, "giving a fuck" is in semantic limbo without clarification. Consequently, I usually give or don't give a "flying fuck", the adjective firmly cementing fuck in the domain of nouns.
In mathematics, a function operates on a variable yielding a value. A variable is grammatically equivalent to a noun. Therefore f(fuck) = 0 is structurally valid, reading as the "the F of fuck equals 0"; graphed it's just the horizontal axis. Fuck as a verb also could be mathematized as fuck(x) = 0, also structurally valid, reading off as "the Fuck of x equals 0"; graphed, it's the origin.
Now, what does this mean? Philosophically, it means this: While one can't logically give a fuck, one can certainly fuck something.
My mathematical dissection of "a fuck" = 1 has been disappeared by Blogger! Dang. Is it language sensitive or spam sensitive?
Milo Minderbinder said...
Math is hard....
—————————
Sure but science is real.
How many fucks are there between zero and one?
If, as appears increasingly likely, we are living in a scripted unreality of some sort, then who wrote the script?
1. Tom Clancy.
- About time for the nukes to start dropping.
2. Steven King.
- Beau's coming back.
3. Jacqueline Susann.
- Right now, Hunter's banging Jill at the beach house.
4. Agatha Christie
- Brilliant and dogged detective Christopher Wray uncovers the plot and exposes the plotters. Nah. Scratch that one.
A fractional fuck is processed through the top hole. A negative fuck is processed through the back... black hole... whore h/t NAACP. An otherwise rational fuck is processed through the natural hole where large gametes roam, and small gametes swim. h/t Rowling
I bet those two could write a heck of a book together.
If she gives less than one fuck (but one assumes it's always formally more than zero) then King is nominally correct: the square is smaller than the square root for (0,1), so even less of it. His argument is wrong of course, since he's arguing {more of not giving a fuck} is *greater* squared, but the round goes to King, here. That said, lit-reknowneds arguing math is...always stupid.
If King had been watching the road instead of doing math in his head he wouldn't be walking with a limp.
“I can go for miles if you know what I mean Well, I don’t know what she means”
A fuck is a reciprocating motion, so the distance traveled is zero. But she may mean the sum of the absolute value of distance traveled in each stroke.
I value a fuck highly, so giving a fuck means that the thing is important. By negation, not giving a fuck means it is unimportant. Since I don’t value the asses of rats, giving a rats ass means the thing is unimportant. Not giving a rats ass means it is important. By “giving” it means you are assigning a relative value to the subject. Inserting the word “could” just makes the statement harder to interpret.
So Rowling is correct. And I am only an amateur fuckologist.
There is no such thing as a fractional fuck. In the words of the UCMJ, Penetration however slight is sufficient to complete the offense.
I came to the comment section of the Althouse blog for a discussion of imaginary numbers, and I am not disappointed.
"So the whole exchange between King and Rowling is pointless because it doesn't make any sense."
It's jovial banter between two people who love words and have mastered, among the top, how to share words in world class ways in our era.
This is really what goes on in writer's heads all the time, where you write something off hand then you wrestle with the details and meaning, even and especially ultimately the off hand remark doesn't care a lot of meaning. It's always a kind of humor, taking something like this and pseudo-analyzing it, and these two have the imaginations to just carry that into a fun back and forth.
British humor has a lot of this, the educated witty banter over inconsequential. Monty Python, especially John Cleese's contributions, has a lot of this.
"I was under the impression that there would be no math." Chevy Chase (as Gerald Ford in the debate)
I read a really funny novel called “How I Became a Famous Novelist,” and in it the hero, after writing a best seller, feels bad about getting into a spat with another famous writer, until he realizes that they both benefit.
Per Genius, the meaning of Pink's lyric is:
'“If you know what I mean” is a wink to the listener that she’s singing about something she can’t explicitly say on a radio-friendly song. Shes bragging about her ability to “go for miles” in the context of partying, which strongly suggests MDMA/molly is the drug in question. MDMA would also match with the chorus lyric, where she alleges to be “coming up”, as well as the maximalist and energetic instrumentals and vocal harmonies.'
https://genius.com/31476847
I have no idea if that's a valid interpretation. I do agree with the first sentence though. Without thinking too much about it, I had always assumed it was miles of male members.
because it doesn't make any sense.
That is why theoretical fuckologists give it a dimensionless value of one. It simplifies the math.
King's was the "Bless your heart" version of respect.
I don't give even the square root of a fuck about this issue. (heh!)
Math is hard....
—————————
Sure but science is real.
@Meade, not Democrat “science.,” no.
"Is it language sensitive or spam sensitive?"
I recommend not trying to delve into the mind of the spam filter. It's entirely whimsical as far as I can tell, and I see everything it catches. Just wait if something doesn't go up.
I was taught to not give a FLYING fuck about any of this in my advanced theoretical fuckologists course.
Help me with the math here. Seems to me, if you don't give a fuck, you're already at zero. Rowling is talking about the smallest possible amount of fuck-giving and being silly about the math. King admits he could be wrong, and isn't he? She doesn't want more than zero, and zero times zero wouldn't give you more than zero anyway. But she wants to go smaller.
Ah, wait! Rowling writes back: "But I was going for a fraction of a fuck. I barely give a tenth of a fuck. So I stand by my square root. What we really need here is a certified fuckologist."
Perfect. JK won. Reeled him in and won.
No, they’re both wrong. Rowling gives 0.1 fuck and presumably wants to go smaller, but the square root of 0.1 is 0.316, which is larger, not smaller.
I give the win to King, though, just for being a much better writer.
Rowling's nanofuck isn't worth a tinker's damn.
Meade said...
Milo Minderbinder said...
Math is hard....
—————————
Sure but science is real.
But can you count fucks with Real Numbers?
Smilin' Jack said...
No, they’re both wrong. Rowling gives 0.1 fuck and presumably wants to go smaller, but the square root of 0.1 is 0.316, which is larger, not smaller.
You left a zero out but I know what you meant.
So is 1/10th of a fuck the same thing as .1 fucks.
One is plural and one is singular...
So maybe a better question is are 2/10ths of a fuck the same as .2 fucks.
This only becomes a thing when you say it out loud...
But if 2/10ths is the same as 1/5th...
The problem here is not Numbers. It is Words.
not fully explored someone finish this for me please
Ann Althouse said...
"Is it language sensitive or spam sensitive?"
I recommend not trying to delve into the mind of the spam filter. It's entirely whimsical as far as I can tell, and I see everything it catches. Just wait if something doesn't go up.
It isn't language. Too many fucks posts go right through.
The pattern I notice is that if you make several posts fairly rapidly, usually responses in semi-side conversations when multiple threads of a conversation are being carried on in a post, it starts to disappear previous posts.
It has some sort of timer function.
If I take a break from work and fire off several responses stuff starts disappearing. I am up to 3 with this post in this series of responses.
Other stuff has started coming back which is almost as annoying because now I need to go kill duplicates.
How many fucks can dance on the head of a pin?
(This thread is what make Althouse content special.)
Stephen King is so inbred, he's 1/8th of an inch away from being a cyclops.
Thank you commenters re: Pink…and this post settles it- everyone here would be perfect to day drink with…I love you all!
Stephen King can pound salt. Rowling is a blessing.
"While we’re on the topic maybe you can help me with Pink. I can go for miles if you know what I mean Well, I don’t know what she means."
I found the above comments on this enlightening.
My first thought was that, post sex, Pink looks around and thinks, "Wonder where I am this time. Salt Lake City? Holy cow how far is that from LA. This could be a new record". [If so, mad respect.]
Follow the bouncing ball. If you know what I mean.
and Stevie King steals story lines from other authors.
You can be sure he's read a lot of Roald Dahl.
The two primary motions are rotation and sexual movement, whose combination is expressed by the locomotive’s wheels and pistons.
These two motions are reciprocally transformed, the one into the other.
Thus one notes that the earth, by turning, makes animals and men have coitus, and (because the result is as much the cause as that which provokes it) that animals and men make the earth turn by having coitus.
It is the mechanical combination or transformation of these movements that the alchemists sought as the philosopher’s stone.
It is through the use of this magically valued combination that one can determine the present position of men in the midst of the elements.
- Bataille, who raises the question of counting fucks.
Actually, long ago, a guy at work reported that he fucked his wife seven times last night - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7. Still in the short fuse stage. There's a usage question about giving a fuck.
Yes, a square root of a positive number is always smaller than the number itself. The square root of zero is zero.
Now negative numbers are more difficult to quantify. The square root of a negative number is imaginary, so trying to compare it to a standard negative number is hard to address. However, the interesting thing is if you multiply a negative number by a positive number greater than zero, the result is smaller than the original negative number as, say, -100 is less than -1, so I suppose the imaginary root is technically larger. Then again, I suppose having an imaginary number of f's to give would be even less than zero. It is quite the philosophical question.
who was this Steve King guy? did he do B movie horror screen plays back in the 80s or something?
Static Ping said...
Yes, a square root of a positive number is always smaller than the number itself.
REALLY? what is the square root of 1/4th? how about 1/16th? how about 1/100?
I guess.. Like Barbie says.. "Math is HARD!"
And in the end, the fucks you give are equal to.... ? The Beatles invented emotional math equations. Has anyone asked Paul to weigh in on this calculus problem?
I've never cared for horror and madness stories such as King produces, and have never read his books, though I saw Kubrick's "The Shining" despite the story's origin and the two leads, neither of which are faves of mine.
When I first saw and heard him on some interview show, he struck me as -exactly- the sort of person I wouldn't like, and arsy-versy. It was uncanny.
Taking the square root of a positive number always gets you closer to 1. Squaring always gets you farther from 1.
So. I'm sad to say, King was right in this one.
The square root of 0.01 is 0.1
0.01 squared is 0.0001
"I barely give a tenth of a fuck". Since she's trying to get closer to 0, and farther from 1, she should square it
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा