I was reading my good friend's short article (Sept 10 entry)about a love story. This is the direct response to his story as I dont want to take up a full page of his comment to write it. Plus he cant take out this huge load of crap theory in MY BLOG! Quote my friend wrote "Why is it such simple idea of two persons falling in-love can be so complex and intriguing?" Let's see the Math involving 2 souls falling in love with each other.

Here we assume the case of falling in love between homo sapiens (intraspecies) and betwen Male and Female.

We have to define our functions and constants and variables;

Definition
Act of 2 souls falling in Love = L
Response from Male = M
Response from Female = F

Since 2 souls involved in assumption are Male and female, L therefore is M and F dependable.

Classical point of view: M likes F; M dislike F; F likes M; F dislike M.
We can assign values to each case: M = 1 ; M = -1; F = 1; F = -1 Therefore Outcome L = M + F;
At L = 2, the two souls will fall in love.

Normalized you will get L = c(M + F) = 1, with c = 0.5

note: if none has feeling ie never met, assign value = 0

If girl likes guy, F = 1; guy likes girl, M = 1; L = 0.5 x 2 = 1; which means they would fall in love.

or

If girl never meet guy, F = 0; guy likes girl because she looks hot in poster, M = 1 L = 0.5 x 1 = 0.5; which means they wouldnt fall in love.

It is discrete, which means they would only fall in love only if L = 1; nothing would happen if L = 0.8 or 0.9.

This is the simple Love equation that is everyone's knowledge. I just put it in Mathematics language. In addition, love is blind, therefore, other components such as financial status, physical appearance (Length, Mass, Temperature)... are constants and once you normalize them, L ended up as the same ratio at same t, time. Unless F = M = 1 happens at t, only will the act of falling in love happen.

However, our friend's observation here stated that, after sometime, the girl changes her mind. Which means F = 1 only at t. Here we assign t = t0.
Since the M = 1 not at t0, L therefore is no longer 0.5 x (1 + 1) but 0.5 x (0 + 1) = 0.5 not = 1

This is an interesting observation that show that L is indeed time dependant. Hence, we should wirte L = M(t) + F(t). It is consistent with the classical view of love.

In the bible, 1 Corinthians 13 : 7 sums up Love nicely, "Love never gives up; and its faith, hope, and patience never fail." All the mentioned components (faith, hope, patience, never give up) are time in the long run, which means t is not in terms of an instant but accumulation of some time. So, our L is no longer t at an instant, but a sum of M(t) and F(t) at given instant. Those constants that I mentioned also will influence M(t) and F(t) value as they are not time independent. (You may strike loterry out of the blue and that changes your 'mating partner's F(t) value.) In general, integrate them and divide it with t observation. You would be able to find the mean or average value.

What is important is that M(t) is no longer a simple 1/0 value but a decimal of values. M(t) = 1 or F(t) = 1 only if the test subjects are constantly falling in love which we know it never happen. Unless both knows the existance of the other at early age. However, people are falling in love regardless. We can only conclude that L is not a discrete value, but a probability.

But as it is in quantum physics, it is just a probability. Even at L = 0.99 value, who knows if girl is married and that 0.01 may due to that reason and thus no act of falling in love happen. Besides, the longer the time period the more accurate it is.

As mentioned constants are also time dependable and therefore changes from time to time which will eventually alter the discrete value of M(t) and F(t). Actual value of M(t) or F(t) are in decimals to make calculation easier we simplified it by rounding up the value. So, I like you, +1 and I hate you, -1. I dont know you, 0.

This theory depends on how seriouly you take the quote from 1 Corinthians 13 : 7. You may find other quotes but I think it will still lead to the same argument.

However, assume that you have no argument with my source of quotation, it leads to an important finding, Love at first sight could never be true...how sad.

Besides, if you didnt realize, this theory doesnt include interspecies (ie beastilty), intragender (ie homosexual) and multiple partners.

To further help you understand, here is an example case.

In simple 100 days observations-
Guy: day 1 - day 30, guy likes girl; day 31 - day 60, guy busy; day 61 - day 100, guy likes girl
Girl: day 1 - day 30, girl dislike guy (maybe he's stalking her); day 31 - day 60, girl likes guy (lack of attention); day 61 - day 80, girl busy; day 81 - day 100, girl likes guy

M(t) = (30 x 1 + 30 x 0 + 40 x 1) / 100 = 0.7

F(t) = (30 x -1 + 30 x 1 + 20 x 0 + 20 x 1) / 100 = 0.2

L = c( + ) = 0.5 x (0.7 + 0.2) = 0.45

So we can conclude that they might have a 45% chance of getting hooked up if someone put the two together after 100 days observation.

If you think you understand, try this.

In simple 12 months observation, the following significant events happened-

month 1: girl transferred to new school
month 2: guy taught girl how to play tennis
month 3: guy's birthday, girl send present
month 4: exam, study together
month 5: term holiday, their home far far away
month 6: school starts, take classes together
month 7: got girlB hit on guy, guy went out for a month
month 8: girl's birthday but guy forget
month 9: guy broke girl's precious vase
month 10: girl felt sick guy visited her
month 11: exam, but didnt study together -different classes
month 12: they both bought each other Xmas present

So, what is the probability of L at month 11 and month 12?

Wait, do you all think that I took this comment too seriously?