Finding a life partner is a delicate balance. When you first start dating people, you don’t know, on average, how romantically well matched other people could be to you, and without that baseline you cannot ascertain if someone is an above average catch and someone you should settle down with. This makes permanently partnering up with the first person you date a bit of a gamble: You should date a few people to get the lay of the land. That said, if you take too long dating people, you run the risk of missing your ideal partner and being forced to make do with whoever is available at the end. It’s a tricky one. The ideal thing to do would be to date just the right number of people to gain the best sense of your options while leaving the highest probability of not missing your ideal partner.

Luckily, math has made it easy for us: That right number of people is the square root of the total number of people you could date in your life. How you estimate the size of your possible dating population is entirely up to your statistical skills and the level of your self-confidence, as is how you then collect your sample

Step 1: Estimate how many people you could date in your life, n .
Step 2: Calculate the square root of that number, √ n .
Step 3: Date and reject the first √n
people; the best of them will set your benchmark.

Step 4: Continue dating people and settle down with the first person to exceed the benchmark set by the initial √n dates.

source. npf
dailymail

ok....your name said it all

Bro what if n tends to grow geometrically, say (n+4)

in such case taking the square root of n growing geometrically would create problems as an infinite or possible a decimal bench-mark might emerge

i believe in such case differentiation is a more efficient way of solving taking the estimated population as X=n where Y= X^2 wrt x

mofeoluwadassah:
ok....your name said it all

the theorem did not come from me

it is in Wikipedia

How To Do It
Alex writes: "Imagine that you are interviewing 20 people to be your secretary [or your spouse or your garage mechanic] with the rule that you must decide at the end of each interview whether or not to give that applicant the job." If you offer the job to somebody, game's up. You can't go on and meet the others. "If you haven't chosen anyone by the time you see the last candidate, you must offer the job to her," Alex writes (not assuming that all secretaries are female — he's just adapting the attitudes of the early '60s).
So remember: At the end of each interview, you either make an offer or you move on.
If you don't make an offer, no going back. Once you make an offer, the game stops.
According to Martin Gardner, who in 1960 described the formula (partly worked out earlier by others), the best way to proceed is to interview (or date) the first 36.8 percent of the candidates. Don't hire (or marry) any of them, but as soon as you meet a candidate who's better than the best of that first group — that's the one you choose! Yes, the Very Best Candidate might show up in that first 36.8 percent — in which case you'll be stuck with second best, but still, if you like favorable odds, this is the best way to go.
Why 36.8 percent? The answer involves a number mathematicians call "e" – which, reduced to a fraction 1/e = 0.368 or 36.8 percent. For the specific details, check here , or Alex's book, but apparently this formula has proved itself over and over in all kinds of controlled situations. While it doesn't guarantee happiness or satisfaction, it does give you a 36.8 percent chance — which, in a field of 11 possible wives — is a pretty good success rate.
Try It, Johannes ...
What would have happened if Johannes Kepler had used this formula? Well, he would have interviewed but made no offers to the first 36.8 percent of his sample, which in a group of 11 ladies means he'd skip past the first four candidates. But the moment he'd met somebody (starting with lady No. 5) that he liked better than anyone in the first group, he'd have said, "Will you marry me?"
In real life, after a period of reflection, Johannes Kepler re-wooed and then married the fifth woman.
The way Alex figures it, if Kepler had known about this formula (which today is an example of what mathematicians call optimal stopping), he could have skipped the last batch of ladies — the sickly one, the unshapely one, the too-young one, the lung-disease one — and, all in all, "Kepler would have saved himself six bad dates."
Instead, he just followed his heart (which, of course, is another tolerable option, even for great mathematicians). His marriage to No. 5, by the way, turned out to be a very happy one



http://www.npr.org/sections/krulwich/2014/05/15/312537965/how-to-marry-the-right-girl-a-mathematical-solution

thepussyhunter:
Bro what if n tends to grow geometrically, say (n+4)

in such case taking the square root of n growing geometrically would create problems as an infinite or possible a decimal bench-mark might emerge

i believe in such case differentiation is a more efficient way of solving taking the estimated population as X=n where Y= X^2 wrt x

the equation has lots of assumption

1) n is definite

2) the finance can not reject the offer

3) you can't recall a disqualified candidate

You have a point these days it's better to date till you find the right person
It might be the first person you date or not
personality/attitude changes and it's better to really know the person till you settle..

mumumugu:



the equation has lots of assumption

1) n is definite

2) the finance can not reject the offer

3) you can't recall a disqualified candidate

oh is see

though n can be indefinite and can grow or reduce either arithmetrically or geometrically depending on the individual as most people tend to be on the fense on such issues

well since you say we're assuming, its all good

THIS mathematics formula shows how long your relationship will last






Whilst science has not yet manufactured the perfect partner, mathematicians are claiming to have found the formula that predicts how long love will last. Research commissioned by MSN has revealed a new love equation that determines the key ingredients to a successful, long-lasting relationship - with factors such as a good sense of humor ranking in importance alongside a person's number of previous sexual partners.

The formula explained:
L = 8 + .5Y - .2P + .9Hm + .3Mf + J - .3G - .5(Sm - Sf)2 + I + 1.5C
L: The predicted length in years of the relationship
Y: The number of years the two people knew each other before the relationship became serious
P: The number of previous partners of both people added together
Hm: The importance the male partner attaches to honesty in the relationship
Mf : The importance the female attaches to money in the relationship
J: The importance both attach to humor (added together)
G: The importance both attach to good looks (added together)
Sm and Sf = The importance male and female attach to sex
I = The importance attached to having good in-laws (added together)
C= The importance attached to children in the relationship (added together)
Note: All 'importance' measures can be scaled from 1 to 5 where 1 is not important at all and 5 is very important.

fantastic piece, so how do you marry the right girl? also read this. 10 kinds of ladies you get to meet everyday. click here...http://m.af1234.com/Af1234/details?id=2544

Why not date the wrong girl and make it right with her than all these mathematical disturbance.

Just go to a shop, find one undergraduate that is helping her mum to sell and marry her.

For she will be more productive than the slay queens whose only motives are to slay around.

more