Ask the bunny god!

Originally posted by Lunasa Prismriver
Wat no.
Everyone knows it's

Sorry but boob size was proven to be irrelevant when loli entered the equation.

Originally posted by troublexassassin
Sorry but boob size was proven to be irrelevant when loli entered the equation.

Incorrect, the equation states the division of the square root of boob size and thusly means that more moe results from a flatter chest. With a is chest flat enough, the character would actually be able to increase in moe.

Merp?

Originally posted by Lunasa Prismriver
Incorrect, the equation states the division of the square root of boob size and thusly means that more moe results from a flatter chest. With a is chest flat enough, the character would actually be able to increase in moe.

Ah but you see Einstein was wrong. Let us reexamine the original question.

"What mathematical theory someone should use to calculate the cuteness of something or someone?"

You're equasion is solving for moe not cuteness. It also dosn't cover the possibility of an inanimate object being cute. For example. Teacups can be very cute. Tea cups can not blush, tea cups can not wear maid outfits. Tea cups can however be lolis, as seen in the image below.





Also incorrect is the implication that either blush or maid outfits are required to make something cute or moe

cute


also cute


Not to mention i'm a god so therefore your argument is invaled.

Divide by zero?

0 / 0 = money

Originally posted by troublexassassin
0 / 0 = money

We must go deeper...
We must take the function that produces the indeterminate form and apply L'Hopital's rule and see what the actual result is...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y3R8tkvlAlk

Which might explain why Pies are Square!


Sent from my Bad Apple!! iPhone using Tapatalk