Although many believe love is a subjective expression, is there an objective mathematical function for it?
Love can not be expressed in equation. Rather it is an emotional feeling and state of mind.
Will this definition be okay?
L = G/R, G= amount of what we give, R= amount of what we receive.
L = infinite, when R=0, G= any positive number
L=0 when G=0, R is any positive number
L=1, when G=R but not 0, not negative
L =meaningless when L=0, R=0
L=love is Giving.
Advanced Happy Valentine's Day, Joachim!
L=G/R means that Love is proportional to ability/capacity to give, and inversely proportional to ability/capacity to receive.
1-This would put rich people at an advantage over poor people (they have more to money, assets, time, energy etc). Do rich people love more than poor people?
2-For someone to give, someone has to receive. So a natural competition emerges; with every giving someone's Love score increases and the other's falls. In turn, the receiver is obligated to give and receive less. Once one loves, can he/she love more? What does it mean to love more?
3-Receiving is necessary to allow someone to give (love). This is also an act of love. So, receiving seems to be proportional to love.
Perhaps receiving we can replace 'receiving' with 'taking', and re-model love.
L / S = x *(G(g1,g2,r2,t2) * R(r1,g2,r2) ) /(T)
x= factors not accounted for yet
G(g1,g2,r2) = willingness to give as a function of: one's capacity to give, other's capacity to give, other's capacity to receive, other's ability to take
R(r,Givers(g)) = willingness and ability to receive as a function of: one's capacity to receive, giver's capacity and willingness to give, giver's capacity and ability to receive.
T=one's taking tendency
L=one's Love tendency
S=one's survival
BIG PROBLEM;
1) When one's existence is threatened, one's ability to love depends on survival; he/she may have to take, in order to live, and to love. This equation wouldn't do a good job accounting for that.
2) Optimization of such a system might be very difficult. I recommend the quantum computer designers to implement a heart; or develop an API for consultant with hearts and experience with love.
Ha, ha ha! I LOVE your answer Reza. In the original equation, the best value would be 1 (unity) where G=R. Rich person or poor person both give infinite love when R=0, no matter what amount is G. Thanks a lot for your answer.
One plus one equals one.
Two lovers affirm their unity.
This is the meaning of Aristophanes' myth in Plato´s Symposium, according to which each lover seeks his other half.
According to online Merriam Webster Dictionary Love is a feeling of strong or constant affection for a person. It therefore should not depend on any transaction. No evidence has been obtained that this attraction should be inversely proportional to the square of the distance between the agents. Though it is not exactly known, let me try to model it. Let
v[i,k] be the k'th feature of the agent i.
and A.i be a function that determines the affinity related to a feature of some other agent. A.i(v[j,m]), for example returns the affinity of agent i towards agent j related to the m'th feature of agent j. If the sum of all such affinity values related to a particular agent j exceeds a certain threshold then we may conclude that i loves j. Characteristics of the function A is very complicated. Sometimes it may show a peak when similar features of i and j are contradictory. The function A may show a dynamic behavior, for example an extreme negative value may suddenly switch to a large positive affinity such that it crosses threshold. Moreover the temporal behavior of the overall affinity once crosses threshold will show a highly nonlinear characteristics.
Any love which is susceptible to an equation, is not true love! True love can only get the feeling of!
If you do this quantification analysis, then you will lose the magic of the instant!
So, the answer is: maybe, but it is highly not recommended!
Love can not be expressed in equation. Rather it is an emotional feeling and state of mind.
Since love involves emotional; feelings, a mathematical equation cannot be used to express. Mathematical models are applicable only for mechanical/physicomechanical systems.
Mathematics provides a simplified version of the world. Love is too complex to be truly captured by mathematics. What is your definition of love? E.g. Biology-based, spiritual-based, etc......
How do specialists in mathematics get truly access to the mental states of those that share?
Love being a highly complex and nonlinear process it needs a precise and thorough understanding before a suitable model can be prescribed. The model is expected to be unique for each particular instance. Thorough understanding requires intimate involvement in the actual system which in turn would result non functioning of the intellectual faculties.
Dear Eddie,
I agree with Costas statement "Any love which is susceptible to an equation, is not true love"! I find even the question absurd. Why would one want to, what is the purpose in doing so to argue future AI machines are capable of love? That mathematics is the language of love?
Love is intimacy in its nobelist form. Love is the apex of human trust, and the height of or emotionality. Love is honesty at its finest and compassion in totality. Love is openness and vulnerability, fear and courage, selfless and selfishness, confusion and clarity, and friendship and companionship. Love is the highest calling of humanity and the only path toward a just society.
I must disagree with all do respect to Shabans' equation of Man+ Woman= Family on two accounts. Love is not solely about creating a family and secondly love is also not limited to heterosexuals.
Douglas
Douglas, finding an objective mathematical equation for love is one of our countless attempts to define what seems to be a very complex, subjective expression. I thank all of you for these "attempts". Your view is one of those, and I thank you for that. Ed
I agree that math and love do no go together. Noone would be able to predict its "product".
What do you think about this?
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/LovesEquation.html
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/HeartCurve.html
Bye!
Dear All,
I prefer to read verses and short stories on love. E.g. those of Maupassant.
@ Eddie,
Again I ask what is the reason behind the need, quest, to find an "objective mathematical equation for love is one of our countless attempts to define what seems to be a very complex, subjective expression". To me if it does turn out to be possible (I doubt) what then? I know some of you are my age and how many of you remember the movie "The StepFord Wife's" (1975). Is that the drive behind the quest? Has any thought been given to the what then question? How will this be used, what sort of power will it bring? In our history far to many times we have taken this path and not fully thought about the critical questions starting with what then?
Second point, don't you Eddie think having a objective mathematical equation for love will somehow take away from what love is? Love includes magic and wonderment, joy and beauty, curiosity and amazement. From the ladder what is the former, love is reduced to a simple equation? How romantic is that? What would be the phrase we use when we get down on one knee and say "Julie I [(X/4⇒Y/6) ⇔ (Y/6⇒X/4) and we are (∃ n ∈ ℕ: n is even) so we ∁ each other and ⋄ you are my sole mate so I ask (Y/6 ∪⊂X/4) so we can begin our lives together? ]
Over duck and wine as the sun sets. No thank you!
Douglas
Dear Douglas,
You are correct that even if we can find a precise mathematical equation for love it may not serve any purpose; it may not have any application. However, research does not always obey such restriction that if it has no immediate application that we can think of we should not proceed. It starts with a challenge to solve an apparently unsolvable difficult problem. I think this question also originated from such belief. I would like to add that research on emotion modeling is a current topic in AI.
Dear Anup,
I agree with you, and I brought up the issue of AI in my first response. I asked is the purpose to one day argue that these two AI machines are programmed to be in love?
My point is that just because we can do something does not mean we should without critically questioning the implications of such a "science breakthrough". What are the ethical questions that are involved? I know my position on two people regardless of gender who are in love have the right to marry, do I know have to include two machines who are programmed to love each other? What do I call Hall JR?
I know my example is "out there" but I hope I have made my point.
Douglas,
If you ask the ethical implication I really don't know the answer. I don't think that even if we can make, as you said, "a science breakthrough" even then it may have very useful application. But the knowledge gained in such effort may become useful for some other applications.
From a friend during my college years, Solomon-Adonis P Botictic
"Yes. number of heartbeat, quantity of pheromone, temperature of exhaled breath and part of body from abdomen either up or down below (depending on the kind of your love), velocity of circulation from your BP, size of dilation or reduction of pupil. add and divide by variable. higher scale of love quantitative measure equals both aggressive love and lust. median measure equals something approaching truer love. very low scale, either calculating love or false love. hahahaha"
Douglas,
I saw the movie the Stepford Wives, including the newer version starring I guess Nicole Kidman and Christopher Walken. You have a very credible and likeable defense for not agreeing to a lovely mathematical equation, and I agree with it, and in fact "love" it. But still I believe finding a mathematical equation for love is "normal" to a researcher like me. You see, we may not actually like it, but we try always to be "objective" with our research methodologies even if we are aware that as human beings as opposed to the objective "automatons" in the Stepford Wives, we can never scape being subjective. Ed
Dear Eddie,
"...we may not actually like it, but we try always to be "objective" with our research methodologies..."
sometime it fails and may be that is LOVE!
Yes, Anup, maybe that is love.
However, finding an equation for love, perhaps a predictive mathematical model in the future, could gain popularity for those who would wish to "win" in love. Wouldn't it be wonderful? Only the lonely...
If we are serious about our aim let us first try to develop an algorithm that will tell us whether love exists between a pair of agents. For that we need to estimate different parameters. However there are many different types of love, for example between mother and the child, between two friends etc and also THE LOVE that we understand. And this will involve proper selection of parameter space. To start with we can look into the written correspondence between them and from the semantic analysis of these correspondences possibly we can design a program that will be able to detect the existence of a particular type of love. I feel this can be a good topic of research in AI.
Dear Eddie,
I thank you for the reply. I also very much respect the work as you write "normal to a researcher(s) like me" do. Sometimes, however I feel we, as researchers may get ahead of the ethical and moral questions or implications of said research before the consequences of said research both known and unintended are thought out.
In Peace,
Douglas
From my high school classmate Godofredo Furio
We cannot express love in equation unless we know the real faces of it.
From my classmate in BS in Agricultural Engineering in UPLB Victor Ella
Maybe. It depends on the kind of love and the giver. If you’re talking about God’s love, it must be love = ∞. For love of country, it should be love = voting for competent and trustworthy leaders + doing one’s part in national development. For other types of love, only the giver can define the equation and it depends on the intensity. It may be a sinusoidal function or an error function or a Bessel function of the second kind and other variants to capture the intensity and temporal variation. Does it make sense?
Defining love in terms of other variables is a bit tricky, it comprises of many determinants which vary among race, place, type of life ...................................... It is so difficult, or there is nothing like that at all.
yes, you can define the love by logic expression using logic consequent from the set of logical expressions of antecedent also you can use fuzzy logic for characteristic.
Dear,
Love depends on our memories, and this is the same for fractional order systems, I think those papers may help you :
Rencai Gu, Yong Xu,"Chaos in a Fractional-Order Dynamical Model of Love and Its Control",Nonlinear Mathematics for Uncertainty and its Applications
Advances in Intelligent and Soft Computing Volume 100, 2011, pp 349-356.
Wajdi M. Ahmad, Reyad El-Khazali, "Fractional-order dynamical models of love", Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, Volume 33, Issue 4, August 2007, Pages 1367-1375, ISSN 0960-0779.
Dears all,
How could my hypothesis help you ? Hypothesis : life as we learn to understand it from earth specimens is physical organisation of mater by a cooperation principle coming from natural energy flow coupled with cybernetical teleonomic morphogenetic building and regulation guided by choices of what we feel and experiment as best ( as not bad ) for us. This assumes the important part played by informations as "relations" in all meanings or sense you can infer from the mathematical general point of view.
Jean-Yves
I state an extract from the book:
Edward Frenkel, LOVE and MATH: The Heart of Hidden Reality
“ This book is also about love. Once, I had a vision of a mathematician discovering
the “formula of love,” and this became the premise of a film Rites of Love
and Math , which I will talk about later in the book. Whenever I show the film,
someone always asks: “Does a formula of love really exist?”
My response: “Every formula we create is a formula of love.” Mathematics
is the source of timeless profound knowledge, which goes to the heart of all
matter and unites us across cultures, continents, and centuries. My dream is
that all of us will be able to see, appreciate, and marvel at the magic beauty and
exquisite harmony of these ideas, formulas, and equations, for this will give so
much more meaning to our love for this world and for each other.”
I don't think we can invent an equation for that, but you can know the true love: When them you love, tortured you, and when you raise your hands to the sky to call on them, (making bad Dua'e) you find yourself crying and praying for them.
To be a lover,or not to be;that is the question!
A life without love = 0.
It is of no use to view or to consider Love as a subjective or & objective method. It is not subject of measurement for every human beings it is tune of our mind ,brain ,& heart , & in this line it is to be viewed in a different mode .
Love is a union of Heart & Mind . It is not merely to join between Male & Female . Love starts with the mother & child & with the passage of time father & direct kith & kin join with the Love of the family .
The opposite of Love is hatred & whatever we see the problems in the society or even in the entire world result from hatred it is just call essential that Love to be cultivated & where their is utmost necessary it should be trained by motivating the Mind & heart of the person concerned .
To me Love is basic end of the life & as such it is respective as '' LOVE IS GOD & GOD IS LOVE ''.
This is my personal opinion
Although many believe love is a subjective expression, is there an objective mathematical function for it?
I think is challenging to do so because:
Nader, can you explain further, or show the mathematical proof that 1+1= infinity symbol?
Thanks
Eddie
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Psychology
- Emotion