The mathematical formula for love
BY RACHEL BROWNE
Relevant offers
If you want to find your one and only, you'll need to date the flirty dozen first.
Mathematician Clio Cresswell says that singles can increase their chances of finding true love by rejecting at least 12 potential partners before settling down.
If more people followed Dr Cresswell's theory - based on statistical outcomes - the divorce rate would plummet.
"In Australia, the divorce rate is about 35 per cent for first marriages," she said.
"Now, if you were buying a DVD player and I told you it had a 35 per cent chance of breaking down, you might think twice about making that purchase.
"But we still insist on going into marriage with this belief that our partner is the one for us and we have a 100 per cent chance of success."
Yet single people who have had at least 12 romantic attachments - and they don't have to involve sex - considerably improve their odds of finding Mr or Ms Right.
"According to my principle, you have to reject at least 12 people to increase your chance of finding your long-term partner. If you do that, you raise the chance of making it work to 75 per cent."
Having written about her theory in her book, Sex and Mathematics, the University of Sydney senior lecturer in the School of Mathematics and Statistics incorporated it into her tertiary classes.
"I think it's so sad that the wider community does not embrace mathematics as much as it could," she said.
"Mathematics can be fun."
- © Fairfax NZ News
Sponsored links
So that explains why humans will continue to update their old partners with the latest new & improved model.
So... true love falls on lucky number 13? And speed dating is pointless for the first hour or so? At the local barn-dance I have to ensure that there are at least 12 guys in front of me if I'm to get my dream woman? I never did like maths >:(
I'm almost 31 and I'm still looking for number 1!
Maybe if we actually followed something logical like mathematics we might have more success.Don't scoff it till you try it
I think it would be foolish to take this as 100% accurate. It's a theory and for what it's worth, fairly interesting.
Pinch of salt, people...
I agree with Mel. This is a joke. First of all, rejecting 12 potential partners to increase your chances of finding the Right One is a stupid idea - what if your perfect partner happens to be one of the rejected, but you didn't know it? My wife was the first girl I've ever fallen in love with, and we've been happily married for a long time now. Second of all, every couple who are genuinely in it together has a 100% chance of success at marriage - there's no such thing as a marriage that doesn't work, only people who give up. Your reactions to whatever events may cross your path are your decision in the end - think about that...
12 people - getting to know them well... Not having sex because it can short-circuit knowledge of the personality, and because it brings you way too close when you don't know how much a person can be trusted... 12 people, so you don't automatically go for someone you just think might do...
12 people, to help you know if you are attracted someone like/unlike your parents - and to sort out this kind of thing before it's too late
12 people - so you know you are not just trying to get away from home, or find security, or like their sense of humour, or brains, or body, or money, or....
Or maybe if you just get around in a group that helps you get to know a lot of people well, and do the whole thing a bit slower...
Divorce rates are higher for the second time round too... It is worth it to know what you are doing, and for what reason
Mel, not only that but DVD players have a fairly consistent MTBF by model, but not between models, let alone between different manufacturers. People who do not know the very first thing about either science or mathematics should shut up. The media should also stop reporting the theories of uneducated people. Now, call me troll bait if you wish.
This is just straight up stupid LOLZ
I want my 1 minute back!
Model ignores Victoria's Secret snub
The age of the Angry Young Man
Study looks at Kiwis' height, weight
Stuff's daily street style photo
Jonah Hill reveals diet struggle
In my beauty bag: Antonia Prebble
Gender non-conformity linked to abuse
Is the other woman always to blame?
Spiced apricots with caramel cream
Carterton tragedy: Safety chief would refuse balloon ride
Major courts overhaul proposed
Foreign Affairs Ministry confirms 305 jobs to go
Mob cancels star's performance
Kiwis not up with online security
Helena Bonham Carter 'honoured'
New hope for kiwifruit growers
Gender non-conformity linked to abuse
Nelsen cleared to lead NZ against Jamaica
Robinson starts for Chiefs against old team
Man's childhood comic collection fetches $4.2m
Carterton tragedy: Safety chief would refuse balloon ride
Heavy rains, wind pound country
Henry climbs into Aussie crisis
Daily trivia quiz: February 23
Reviewer: Henry star of new show
Runners strip off for Christchurch
Why I feel for the kids of ego-trippers
2 Broke Girls: the worst new show of 2012
The age of the Angry Young Man
Is the other woman always to blame?
Reviewer: Henry star of new show
Sea Shepherd ship to set sail from Wellington
Newest First
Oldest First













Chris #4
Mathematics actually governs nothing in the real world.
Mathematics can *characterize* or *formulate* some things, but it does not govern anything.
For example look at gravity. Gravity happened long before mathematics was ever invented so we can't say that mathematics governs gravity. However, we are able to define mathematical formulas that describes how gravity works.
There are many things we cannot predict with mathematics, even if way can characterize averages etc. For example, you can say that on average you'll throw a 6 1/6 of the time but you can't predict what the next throw will be.
Same deal here. You can predict that people with more than 12 pre-marriage relationships are less likely to divorce, but it is not conclusive.