The true meaning of love

Whilst sitting in science yesterday with Elliot and feeling immensely bored unstimulated, I decided to work out the true meaning of love.  Well, if you want me to do some real work, try motivating me with something other than photocopies mind-numbing physics worksheets.

There is a trend within the much hated ‘Emo’ subculture here in England of drawing hearts as <3.  This comes from instant messaging conversations and websites wanting a textual alternative to the heart, but some quite mislead people took it upon themselves to take this out of context and draw textual hearts everywhere – on their school planners, on posters, on cards, etc. – in an attempt to conform and feel like they’re a part of the Emo or scene subcultures.

Somewhere along the line, the textual heart changed into a replacement for the word ‘love’ (some people have decided to make themselves sound even more mentally retarded by replacing the word ‘love’ with the word ‘heart’, resulting in moronic declarations such as ‘I heart you!’).  But <3 is also a mathematical statement – it is shorthand for ‘less than three’.

So, ‘love’ equals ‘less than three’ mathematically.  ‘Less than three’ in positive integers can be one of two numbers: 1 or 2.  So in its most basic form:

The meaning of love = 1 or 2

However, I believe that love can be simplified.  If we want to get a simplified number out of a series of numbers, we can average them.  As we only have two integers, the only possible method of averaging is mean.

( 1 + 2 ) / 2  =  1.5

So, the outcome of my physics lesson is that I have learnt nothing new whatsoever about moments or turning points, but have solved the meaning of love:

The Meaning of Love  =  1.5