Fifty Plus (50+) - N-1

So I bought a new bike this week, but have sold two others since. I orignally had 4, then 4+1, then 5-2, for a total of three, or N-1. My wife contents that I still owe the family budget money to cover the new bike. I on the other hand content that she owes me another bike because you CANNOT be at N-1. So to restore balance to the world, it needs to be (N-1)+1=N.

It's kinda like Einsteins Theory of Relatives.

So I bought a new bike this week, but have sold two others since. I orignally had 4, then 4+1, then 5-2, for a total of three, or N-1. My wife contents that I still owe the family budget money to cover the new bike. I on the other hand content that she owes me another bike because you CANNOT be at N-1. So to restore balance to the world, it needs to be (N-1)+1=N.

It's kinda like Einsteins Theory of Relatives.
:roflmao: :beer:

That makes perfect sense to me. Since I had 8 bikes and sold 2 I'm now at N-2:( Does this mean I need to buy 2 bikes?

Now Beverly, we had this conversation. You were only at 8 because you bought the new bikes before you sold the old ones. I thought we agreed that you were able to sell 2 without replacement. But if I remember correctly, you were going to sell 4 of them, which would be a felony offense.

We might let you sell yourself down to 4 bikes, if you then purchase a 2008 Madone (got to count as at least two bikes).

Oh no, this opens up a whole new theory of what N actually is. We have always assummed N was the number of bikes you have now, but is it possible N='Max no. of bikes you had at one time' and how do you determine that time.

So I bought a new bike this week, but have sold two others since. I orignally had 4, then 4+1, then 5-2, for a total of three, or N-1. My wife contents that I still owe the family budget money to cover the new bike. I on the other hand content that she owes me another bike because you CANNOT be at N-1. So to restore balance to the world, it needs to be (N-1)+1=N.

It's kinda like Einsteins Theory of Relatives.

If you originally had 4 then you must end up with 5 to satisfy the N+1 law.

You can play around with adding and subtracting as much as you want, as long as you have 5 by no later than say August.

Then in September, we can begin discussing your next bike.

Now Beverly, we had this conversation. You were only at 8 because you bought the new bikes before you sold the old ones. I thought we agreed that you were able to sell 2 without replacement. But if I remember correctly, you were going to sell 4 of them, which would be a felony offense.

We might let you sell yourself down to 4 bikes, if you then purchase a 2008 Madone (got to count as at least two bikes).

Oops! Forgot I just bought two new bikes:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

A friend is trying to find a home for the Giant hybrid sitting in the bike shed. The other one on the chopping block is just an old Toys R Us bike the grandkids rode. It's going to the bike guy for refurbishing for a kid. That will bring me down to 4. Can I start shopping for another one?

What's the worst that could happen if you just went out and bought another bike?

What's the worst that could happen if you just went out and bought another bike?


:eek:

One never equates the "worst" that could happen if you bought another bike. There is no worst, there is only better. You could fail the membership test with this incorrect thinking.

Ahh, the miles we will go to cook up an excuse to get a new ride. Keep it up, we all need to blow the budget now & then. bk

:eek:

One never equates the "worst" that could happen if you bought another bike. There is no worst, there is only better. You could fail the membership test with this incorrect thinking.


Well, having been married twice, I'm not sure I'd agree with your assessment. ;)

Gonna buy a TT bike within the year. Then I'll have 4, which is N+3 more than I had last summer. And I don't feel guilty at all. :D

In determining the value of N, bicycles purchased for you by others do not count, bicycles purchased as replacements for bicycles you no longer own do not count. Bicycles which have been scavenged for parts do not count unless the frame is kept with intent to reuse (such frames shall be counted as 0.5 bicycles).

Please note that these rules are not universally accepted (most notably by Significant Others)! :D

In determining the value of N, bicycles purchased for you by others do not count, bicycles purchased as replacements for bicycles you no longer own do not count. Bicycles which have been scavenged for parts do not count unless the frame is kept with intent to reuse (such frames shall be counted as 0.5 bicycles).

Please note that these rules are not universally accepted (most notably by Significant Others)! :D

Rules are too limiting, too confusing, too too too. I just got rid of the SO and made my own rules:)

You're all making it too complicated. The rule is that the number of bikes you should have is N+1, where N=the number of bikes you have NOW.

OP has 3 bikes; 3+1=4
Beverly has 6 bikes; 6+1=7
VV has 3 bikes; 3+1=4

the correct number is always what you have now plus 1

the correct number is always what you have now plus 1

So if I have 5 and sell three, then once I am down to 2 the law only requires me to add 1 to get to 3?

My favorite poem (by Ogden Nash)
.....In the world of mules
.....there are no rules

In the world of bikes, N>=N

In the world of bikes, N>=N

That solves ALL of the problems!

So if I have 5 and sell three, then once I am down to 2 the law only requires me to add 1 to get to 3?

That's right. 2+1=3

But then, N=3. N+1=4

and so it goes

So if I have 5 and sell three, then once I am down to 2 the law only requires me to add 1 to get to 3?

That's right. 2+1=3

But then, N=3. N+1=4

Let's say that then someone gave you 4 bikes. Now you have 8, so N=8. Now you need one more.
N+1=9

Whatever number you have at any given time, you need one more.

and so it goes

So, using the Heisenburg Principal of Uncertanty one can either measure the number of bicycles one has or the number one should have. Doesn't matter what you had yesterday? Doesn't matter what you have tomorrow? All that matters is now or next?

WL.....WL.....feel free to step in here.....a little help!

See, that's what I'm talking about. If it as simple as one more than what you have right now. If I sell off all of them, then my "right now" becomes zero.

The other aspect is that no time interval is specified. Therefore to obey the law, you may need to purchase one more bike every hour, or minute, or even second.

Now if it were ruled that the N+1 law was deemed to have been observed whenever one purchases 1 new bike a year, and if it allowed for you to sell or trade off a bike or two every three years, then more people might observe the law.

But I must say that there are many law-abiding citizens here in the 50+ forum. More new bikes than one can shake a stick at.

One could do worse than to follow the advice of the golden helmet!

There is no "observing the law" in the sense that you ever actually own the number of bikes it prescribes. The way the law is written, you are constantly one bike below what you need. The whole point of the law is to provide justification for getting a new bike at any time.
It's just like "tomorrow". Tomorrow never comes because as soon as it seems to arrive, it is no longer tomorrow, it is today.

See, that's what I'm talking about. If it as simple as one more than what you have right now. If I sell off all of them, then my "right now" becomes zero.

The other aspect is that no time interval is specified. Therefore to obey the law, you may need to purchase one more bike every hour, or minute, or even second.

Now if it were ruled that the N+1 law was deemed to have been observed whenever one purchases 1 new bike a year, and if it allowed for you to sell or trade off a bike or two every three years, then more people might observe the law.

But I must say that there are many law-abiding citizens here in the 50+ forum. More new bikes than one can shake a stick at.

Normally I can overlook the rantings of you compulsive analytical types and chuckle at your squirming, but this time you are going too far. You are messing with the fabric of the universe here. Don't kill the goose that lays the golden eggs. If you keep tying to mess with the sacred N+1 law, I'll have no option but to call on my cousin from the old country, Diego Soprano. After he has a "talk" with you, we will hear no more of this heresy.

The other aspect is that no time interval is specified. Therefore to obey the law, you may need to purchase one more bike every hour, or minute, or even second.



Nutz. You got me. I didn't do the dimensional analysis correctly
(or at all) and I missed it. Bikes/fortnight sounds about right,
don't ya think??