The Drunken Equation was borne from an e-mail discussion among a number of Oligarchy officials. The purpose of the discussion was to determine which is better: beer, shots or mixed drinks. Senior Prophet Brent Jackson favored beer, whereas Head Prophet Wayland Phillips stood behind both methods of hard liquor. Others took positions that supported both sides of the debate. The resulting equations and definitions were fleshed out and have become the modern study of Alconomics.

The technical aspects of alcoholic consumption began when Brent issued this generalizing volley:

---

From:     Brent <xxxxxx@cs.cs.appstate.edu> wrote:
Date:     Thu Jan 31, 2002  5:30 pm
Subject:  Re: [True Religion] discussion (no longer about towels)


> Wayland,
> 
> Beer == Man Drink
> 
> Shots == Man Drink
> 
> Mixed == girley
> 
> Therefore
> 
> wayland == girley man ;)
> 
> hehe
> 
> Brent

---

This set the wheels in motion in Wayland's convoluted mind, and he knew there was only one way to fight Brent's pseudologic. Wayland, being a trained Mad Scientician, began working on what became the science of Alconomics.

---

From:     "Wayland Phillips" <xxxxxx@gborocollege.edu>
Date:     Fri Feb 1, 2002  10:46 am
Subject:  Re: [True Religion] discussion (no longer about towels)


Now at least you're making an attempt at logic; however,
when you start with bad premises, you won't come to the
right conclusion. The main problem is you're trying to
equate gender to drinks and it doesn't work. Drinks have
always been and always will be gender neutral. I have to
wonder if there is some insecurity about your manhood that
is causing you to keep insisting that you're drinking a
"man's drink."


I know you're a computer geek, so I am going to attempt to
translate this into math, something you will understand.


To determine mathematically the results of a drinking binge,
we need to define carious terms.


X is the strength of the drink; this is a quantifiable
value, unlike "drunkenness" (use the drink's proofage).
Beer is only 4-8 proof IIRC, so it's got a low X value; hard
liquor has a high X; mixed drinks have a midrange X (since
the mixers dilute the alcohol). If your only goal is to
be stinking drunk, this is the main variable you need
consider...


Y, on the other hand, describes the other, non-alcohol
ingredients of the drink... That's too vague, though -- in
my system, a high Y value would mean high sugar and/or
caffeine. Possibly, you could define "Y" as "stimulant"?
Beer would have a very low Y value (between 0 and 1); it has
many calories that must be digested, and is more likely to
make you drowsy than energetic. Straight hard liquor is
neutral (Y = 1). Anything with sugar or caffeine (fruit
juices, soda, coffee) would have a higher Y value.


So XY defines the quality of the drink -- the higher,
the better. A third variable is required to define the
*quantity* of drinks -- call it Z. Obviously, the more
drinks consumed, the stronger the effect.


A fourth variable (T) defines the time interval over
which the drinks are consumed. T is inversely proportional
to effect -- the more time the drinking is spread over, the
lesser the effect.


So, to determine the result (R) of drinking, we use
this formula:


     X * Y * Z
R = -----------
         T


Obviously, we want to maximize the value of R.




Wayland
...With extra special thanks to Arthur Levesque who helped
me work out the bugs.

---

At this point, Head Prophet Brendan Dillon entered the discussion, pointing out a few flaws in Wayland's theory.

---

From:     Brendan Dillon <xxxxxx@yahoo.com>
Date:     Fri Feb 1, 2002  11:41 am
Subject:  Re: [True Religion] discussion (no longer about towels)


> X is the strength of the drink; this is a quantifiable
> value, unlike "drunkenness" (use the drink's proofage).
> Beer is only 4-8 proof IIRC, so it's got a low X value; hard
> liquor has a high X; mixed drinks have a midrange X (since
> the mixers dilute the alcohol). If your only goal is to
> be stinking drunk, this is the main
> variable you need consider...


Actually, X should be the effect of the alcohol in the drink on
the subject, since different people are affected differently.
Someone like Jason would not get as drunk off the same amount
that would get me drunk. The equation to determine X ought to be:


X = P * T (where P denotes strength, in proof, and T denotes a
subject's tendency to get drunk off an amount of alcohol.)


Note that T for tendency is different from t for time. In most
equations, time should be denoted with a lower-case t, not
upper-case. One could also equate the value of T by considering
the subject's body mass, how often they drink, and other
considerations.


> Y, on the other hand, describes the other, non-alcohol
> ingredients of the drink... That's too vague, though -- in
> my system, a high Y value would mean high sugar and/or
> caffeine. Possibly, you could define
> "Y" as "stimulant"? Beer would have a very low Y value
> (between 0 and 1); it has many calories that must be
> digested, and is more likely to make you drowsy than
> energetic. Straight hard liquor is neutral (Y = 1).
> Anything with sugar or caffeine (fruit juices, soda, coffee)
> would have a higher Y value.


The problem with Y is that it cannot be calculated
mathematically, as a person's value of how something tastes
depends on various physiological and psychological
characteristics. For example, Brent would assign beer a higher Y
value than would you or I.

---

The Oligarchy University's Alconomics Department has made the study of this equation and theory its primary purpose (that, and getting drunk as often as possible). Perhaps one day, it will be developed into a Grand Unified Theory of Drinking, revolutionizing the beverages industry and parties everywhere.

Return to Infusions of Grandeur.