What happens if you get scared half to death twice. :party39:

What happens if you get scared half to death twice. :party39:

You will get scared 3/4 to death if you get scared half to death twice.

Just think about it. If you get scared half to death once, you will have 1/2 of your life remaining. Then another half to death from the remaining 1/2 is a quater. So you get scared 1/2 + 1/4 = 3/4 to death in total, which means that you still have another 1/4 left :D

Simple math. ;)

You will get scared 3/4 to death if you get scared half to death twice.

Just think about it. If you get scared half to death once, you will have 1/2 of your life remaining. Then another half to death from the remaining 1/2 is a quater. So you get scared 1/2 + 1/4 = 3/4 to death in total, which means that you still have another 1/4 left :D

Simple math. ;)

do you always turn to math, when you do not resolve it with religious or sexual meanings?

do you always turn to math, when you do not resolve it with religious or sexual meanings?

The question was asked in a joke and I answered it mathematically.

Do you have a problem with math? How is your question relevant? What religious and sexual meanings are you talking about? Elaborate your question a little bit.

do you always turn to math, when you do not resolve it with religious or sexual meanings?


Let me try for WisePrince....In literature "to die" means to orgasm...so the joke must mean multiple orgasms...If the joke would have said that this happened within the space of half an hour then I would have said it was a pig orgasiming. Did you know that a pig's orgasm lasts an half an hour? Does anyone have forward and if you do please post it.

c goldenmalach, i told u someone would say theres a 1/4 left ;)


i walked into my english class, and as i was sitting there completely bored and not paying attention to anything the teacher was saying, my eyes wandered over to the board. it said "what happens when u get scared half to death twice?" and u can imagine me sitting there. i burst out laughing and couldnt stop for quite some time. ahhh.....those were the days.....

You will get scared 3/4 to death if you get scared half to death twice.

Just think about it. If you get scared half to death once, you will have 1/2 of your life remaining. Then another half to death from the remaining 1/2 is a quater. So you get scared 1/2 + 1/4 = 3/4 to death in total, which means that you still have another 1/4 left :D

Simple math. ;)


I thought about it differently. First time you got scared you got half way to death. In my book , the second time around should have put you 6 feet under. Two halves = a whole. This would complete the journey to "death" :D

I thought about it differently. First time you got scared you got half way to death. In my book , the second time around should have put you 6 feet under. Two halves = a whole. This would complete the journey to "death" :D


There is a flaw in your understanding though. You have two successive events. Say the event is some function of some parameter. The function is being scared half to death and parameter is your life. True, the parameter of both of those events is your life. However, the parameter for both of those events has different values. The second value of that parameter is the output of the function of the first event (and not the original life you started with). Only the first application of the function gets the value of that parameter that is the original life. It is not an addition of functions but function composition.

Function: ScareToDeath
Domain: Life
Codomain: Life

ScareToDeath: Life -> Life

if x is an element from a Life set, then ScareToDeath(x) = x / 2

According to the joke you get scared twice to death successively. You Do composition of functions:

ScareToDeath(ScareToDeath(x)) = ScareToDeath(x/2) = x / 4

Starting with life x the output will be x / 4, meaning that you will still have a quater of your life left.

Do you see similarity of this joke with "half life" concept in chemestry?

In order to be dead (i. e. x = 0) you need to apply that function infinitely many times. That means that you will live infinitely long, even if you get scared continuously half to death. But you can not live forever. Paradox

aha, recursive function, professor :)

There is a flaw in your understanding though. You have two successive events. Say the event is some function of some parameter. The function is being scared half to death and parameter is your life. True, the parameter of both of those events is your life. However, the parameter for both of those events has different values. The second value of that parameter is the output of the function of the first event (and not the original life you started with). Only the first application of the function gets the value of that parameter that is the original life. It is not an addition of functions but function composition.

Function: ScareToDeath
Domain: Life
Codomain: Life

ScareToDeath: Life -> Life

if x is an element from a Life set, then ScareToDeath(x) = x / 2

According to the joke you get scared twice to death successively. You Do composition of functions:

ScareToDeath(ScareToDeath(x)) = ScareToDeath(x/2) = x / 4

Starting with life x the output will be x / 4, meaning that you will still have a quater of your life left.

Do you see similarity of this joke with "half life" concept in chemestry?

In order to be dead (i. e. x = 0) you need to apply that function infinitely many times. That means that you will live infinitely long, even if you get scared continuously half to death. But you can not live forever. Paradox

The question was asked in a joke and I answered it mathematically.

Do you have a problem with math? How is your question relevant? What religious and sexual meanings are you talking about? Elaborate your question a little bit.

I know that. I was only joking. Religious and sexual? heheh never mind.

I like these...Since we're talking scientific proofs, why don't I post a question here too (i'm pretty sure you've heard this one already).

If it's zero degrees celcius outside today, and tomorow the temperature is twice as warm as it was today, what's the temperature tomorow?

I like these...Since we're talking scientific proofs, why don't I post a question here too (i'm pretty sure you've heard this one already).

If it's zero degrees celcius outside today, and tomorow the temperature is twice as warm as it was today, what's the temperature tomorow?

mmmm, if this is straight out math, then whatever is multiplied by zero is always zero. So the temp. today would be still at freezing point=zero degrees.

and if it's more complicated than just simple math, than my brain is too fried to function at 1:17am

mmmm, if this is straight out math, then whatever is multiplied by zero is always zero. So the temp. today would be still at freezing point=zero degrees.

and if it's more complicated than just simple math, than my brain is too fried to function at 1:17am

almost...the questions has just a tid bid of chemistry involved, not just math.

If it's zero Celcius, it's 32 Fahrenheit. If it's twice as warm, it's 64 Fahrenheit. 64 Fahrenheit is about 18 Celcius. :)

I like these...Since we're talking scientific proofs, why don't I post a question here too (i'm pretty sure you've heard this one already).

If it's zero degrees celcius outside today, and tomorow the temperature is twice as warm as it was today, what's the temperature tomorow?

If it's zero Celcius, it's 32 Fahrenheit. If it's twice as warm, it's 64 Fahrenheit. 64 Fahrenheit is about 18 Celcius. :)

I thought about that also, but if thats the case then you can convert to Kelvin also. In that case 0 degrees Celsius will be -273 degrees Kelvin. So twice as warm would be 0 degrees Kelvin which would be 273 degrees Celsius. In this case the above theory must be wrong because the question is stated in terms of Celsius...

from -273 if you need to get to twice warmer, that can't possibly mean 0, can it? :)

I thought about that also, but if thats the case then you can convert to Kelvin also. In that case 0 degrees Celsius will be -273 degrees Kelvin. So twice as warm would be 0 degrees Kelvin which would be 273 degrees Celsius. In this case the above theory must be wrong because the question is stated in terms of Celsius...

I thought about that also, but if thats the case then you can convert to Kelvin also. In that case 0 degrees Celsius will be -273 degrees Kelvin. So twice as warm would be 0 degrees Kelvin which would be 273 degrees Celsius. In this case the above theory must be wrong because the question is stated in terms of Celsius...

OK, you got the right answer for what seems to me like the wrong reason (maybe you misstyped or something, but in any event, the answer is right).

Let me try to explain....when you do any type of calculations with temperatures, you must convert the given temperature to Kelvin (which you tried to do ;) ). The way I remember converting to kelvin, is that in kelvin temperatures there are no negatives (0 Kelvin is the lowest you can go, at that temperature, all molecules stop moving). So when making the conversion from celcius to kelvin, you need to add 273, which will make our given temperature 0 degrees celcius plus 273 = 273 Kelvin.

If we now double that number we'll get 546 Kelvin, and converting back to celcius 546 Kelvin - 273 = 273 degrees Celcius (good job)

Just a little side note about nomenclature....When we express Kelvin temperatures, we never say 273 "degrees Kelvin." In Kelvin temperatures, the right nomenclature is just 273 Kelvin (no "degrees").

aha, recursive function, professor :)

Yep, recursive function, you are absolutely right oh The Great One ;)

I know that. I was only joking. Religious and sexual? heheh never mind.

And I wanted to hear your religious and sexual explanation on that joke so badly. :D

hey, not fair -- I gave the idea for converting to another system. :)
I deserve part (the bigger one :) ) of the credit, therefore. :)

OK, you got the right answer for what seems to me like the wrong reason (maybe you misstyped or something, but in any event, the answer is right).

Let me try to explain....when you do any type of calculations with temperatures, you must convert the given temperature to Kelvin (which you tried to do ;) ). The way I remember converting to kelvin, is that in kelvin temperatures there are no negatives (0 Kelvin is the lowest you can go, at that temperature, all molecules stop moving). So when making the conversion from celcius to kelvin, you need to add 273, which will make our given temperature 0 degrees celcius plus 273 = 273 Kelvin.

If we now double that number we'll get 546 Kelvin, and converting back to celcius 546 Kelvin - 273 = 273 degrees Celcius (good job)

Just a little side note about nomenclature....When we express Kelvin temperatures, we never say 273 "degrees Kelvin." In Kelvin temperatures, the right nomenclature is just 273 Kelvin (no "degrees").

btw, you promised that there's a bit of chemistry involved, and I think the answer is concerned with physics rather than chemistry. :)

just an fyi

OK, you got the right answer for what seems to me like the wrong reason (maybe you misstyped or something, but in any event, the answer is right).

Let me try to explain....when you do any type of calculations with temperatures, you must convert the given temperature to Kelvin (which you tried to do ;) ). The way I remember converting to kelvin, is that in kelvin temperatures there are no negatives (0 Kelvin is the lowest you can go, at that temperature, all molecules stop moving). So when making the conversion from celcius to kelvin, you need to add 273, which will make our given temperature 0 degrees celcius plus 273 = 273 Kelvin.

If we now double that number we'll get 546 Kelvin, and converting back to celcius 546 Kelvin - 273 = 273 degrees Celcius (good job)

Just a little side note about nomenclature....When we express Kelvin temperatures, we never say 273 "degrees Kelvin." In Kelvin temperatures, the right nomenclature is just 273 Kelvin (no "degrees").

I just remember we did more celcius to kelvin conversions in chemistry rather than physics, but you are right!!! :)

btw, you promised that there's a bit of chemistry involved, and I think the answer is concerned with physics rather than chemistry. :)

just an fyi

OK, you got the right answer for what seems to me like the wrong reason (maybe you misstyped or something, but in any event, the answer is right).

Let me try to explain....when you do any type of calculations with temperatures, you must convert the given temperature to Kelvin (which you tried to do ;) ). The way I remember converting to kelvin, is that in kelvin temperatures there are no negatives (0 Kelvin is the lowest you can go, at that temperature, all molecules stop moving). So when making the conversion from celcius to kelvin, you need to add 273, which will make our given temperature 0 degrees celcius plus 273 = 273 Kelvin.

If we now double that number we'll get 546 Kelvin, and converting back to celcius 546 Kelvin - 273 = 273 degrees Celcius (good job)

Just a little side note about nomenclature....When we express Kelvin temperatures, we never say 273 "degrees Kelvin." In Kelvin temperatures, the right nomenclature is just 273 Kelvin (no "degrees").

Thanks ;), but you know, I never took Physics hehe, so my terminology is off :).

c goldenmalach, i told u someone would say theres a 1/4 left ;)


i walked into my english class, and as i was sitting there completely bored and not paying attention to anything the teacher was saying, my eyes wandered over to the board. it said "what happens when u get scared half to death twice?" and u can imagine me sitting there. i burst out laughing and couldnt stop for quite some time. ahhh.....those were the days.....


Yeah. But i really liked all that science i was cracking up just reading in how every one intreputs a joke thier own way! lol!