A 22 top and a 7 bottom
Well, not exactly:
[I dreamed] I was a designer. I was producing a line of tracksuits called “Pi Couture.” Featuring, as you might guess, the digits of pi printed on the backside. The number of digits varied with the size of the tracksuit bottoms … so the tiny little ones would be “3.14″ and the ones for someone like me would be “3.141592″ and then there would be some sizes that said “3.141592653589793″.
And of course, that’s a real design FAIL right there (at least in the real world) because (a) very few women are going to want to walk around with an irrational number on their bums and (b) no woman larger than a “3.14″ is going to want to advertise that fact.
Walking around with any number on your bum is irrational, whether or not it can be expressed as a fraction. (Maybe they’d prefer “transcendental.”)
There should, I think, be a companion line for e, and also for i if the Emperor wants to participate.
fillyjonk »
13 November 2009 · 3:38 pm
Oh, I didn’t even think of e. And don’t forget phi, the Golden Mean. (That one could maybe come with shiny “bling” added).
CGHill »
13 November 2009 · 3:42 pm
You’ve got to have spectacular proportions to wear phi.
fillyjonk »
13 November 2009 · 3:44 pm
Well, yeah, I guess that’s true. Maybe it’s only sold in swanky boutiques where they have a sign that says, “You must be more attractive than this (picture of some minor celebrity) to enter”
CGHill »
13 November 2009 · 3:48 pm
And the transition to Fashion Blog for Math Geeks continues apace.
Kirk »
16 November 2009 · 11:36 am
I’ll just note in passing here that most of the numbers associated with women’s bums are inherently irrational.
Jennifer »
16 November 2009 · 2:36 pm
So when the smaller ladies looked at their backsides in a mirror, they would see PIE.
You’re just trying to grow larger backsides:)
CGHill »
16 November 2009 · 3:58 pm
Somebody needs to get on the phone to 1-800-MIXALOT.