Despite the laziness that Omarion, Chris Brown and Jhene Aiko exhibit in replacing the term “supposed to” with “post to”, even the laziest songs possess some analytical gems that we must explore in depth. Specifically, we at Raponomics want to explore Ms. Aiko’s “freak exposure” analysis:
If your dude come close to me
He gon' wanna ride off in a ghost with me (I'll make him do it)
I might let your boy chauffeur me
But he gotta eat the booty like groceries
But he gotta get rid of these hoes for me
I might have that nigga selling his soul for me
Ooh, that's how it post to be
If he wants me to expose the freak
Above, Ms. Aiko puts forth an analytical framework that yields some interesting results. Let’s explore her statement in depth. For simplicity, let’s assume Ms. Aiko represents a representative female in her model. Ms. Aiko argues that three conditions must exist in order for her to “expose the freak”.
Condition 1: He must “eat the Booty like groceries.” In our model, we will represent this booty-eating variable as b. This is a binary value – either one eats booty or doesn’t eat the booty. There is hardly an in-between for this particular condition.
Condition 2: He must “get rid of the these hoes from me.” In our model, we will represent this “hoe” variable as h, the number of hoes that the model gentleman has. Unlike b above, one could imagine that the number of hoes could vary, but must be strictly a non-negative number. The reader should keep in mind that the removal of hoes will be represented as “-h”.
Condition 3: He must be willing to “sell his Soul for me”. While this is a “fuzzy” condition, let’s assume for purposes of simplicity, that this third condition must be met – a willingness to sell a soul. We will represent the presence of a soul with s. The reader should keep in mind that the sale of the soul will be represented with “-s”.
If we allow f to equal the freak exposure variable, we have the following condition:
b – h - s ≥ f
which is to say in order for Ms. Aiko to affirmatively expose the freak, she must place a higher value on the combination of booty-eating less the presence of hoes less the existence of a soul than exposing the freak. If the above condition is met, we can assume Ms. Aiko is more than willing to expose the freak and at the very least is indifferent between exposing the freak and having her conditions met. Rearranging the above equations, it must hold that:
b ≥f + h + s;
or, eating booty is valued greater than or equal to a freak with a soul, who has hoes. Interestingly enough, the number of hoes does not matter. But keep in mind from above that b can only take on the value 0 or 1. If we assume the gentleman is not a booty-eater (or b=0), it automatically follows from the conditions above that no hoes must exist, Ms. Aiko is not a freak and no soul exists. Empirically, this makes sense. Assuming that the gentleman does eat booty (or b=1), either there is a single hoe, a single soul or a single freak. This is an interesting and powerful result. Ms. Aiko is inherently saying the existence of a soul will make the gentleman eat booty or, in other words, eating booty is completely independent of whether Ms. Aiko is a freak. By definition, if Ms. Aiko finds a man with a soul she believes, by her conditions, he will eat the booty like groceries. Even further – she needs not expose the freak (the condition where f=0). This is a powerful result that comes from Ms. Aiko’s analysis. Let us be clear – we do not purport to test the theoretical power of Ms Aiko’s Freak Exposure Theorem. We simply look to analyze the corollaries of her Theorem. There does exist a duality condition where from the gentleman’s viewpoint:
f ≥ b – h - s
meaning, the gentleman will only enter the transaction if the freak exposure is of greater value to him than eating booty, getting rid of his hoes and losing his soul. We will not explore this side of the duality condition in this post, like its “post to be”, but we hope to tackle this side of this equation in a future post.
**Please note this warning: the conditions are assumed to be additive... Ms. Aiko is not clear. They may very well should be analyzed as multiplicative conditions. We hope to take that approach in an updated post and analyze its results.
A multiplicative approach:
For the benefit of the reader, we must explore a multiplicative approach. From yesterday’s analysis, let us assume a multiplicative analysis, so from above we now have:
b * -h * -s ≥ f
which quite literally mean all conditions at a single point of time t must be met before the freak is exposed. Rearranging, we have
b * ≥ f / (-h * -s), but our denominator has two negative signs which we can rearrange such that:
b ≥ f / (h*s).
We assumed for simplicity, b can only take the values of 0 and 1, h is a non-negative integer and s, for the moment is an unknown. Let examine the case where
b = f / (hs).
In the case where b=0, or, there is no booty eaten, then f must by definition equal zero. No freaks exists in the absence of eaten booty. If h*s = 0, we would have an undefined solution. On the other hand, if b = 1 we now have:
1 = f / (hs)
Let’s assume for simplicity, the one must have a soul or not, so it can only take on values of 0 and 1. This is only an assumption for purposes of analysis as we do not purport to know “how much soul” someone can have (eg. reasonable people can disagree whether Justin Timberlake, for example, is “soulful”). We know that it may range anywhere between 0 and 1, but can possibly take any value in between. It is a relative judgment. Again, we simplify our analysis by only considering the case of 0 and 1. In the case where s = 0, we have an undefined solution – a zombie like state if you will. If s = 1 on the other hand, our equation becomes
1 = f/h or, rearranged, f = h.
What a result! Using a multiplicative analysis, Ms Aiko has literally said, assuming the case where a soul exists, and a booty is being eaten, you must have freak exposure and hoes being equal. I will leave it to the reader to reach their own ultimate conclusions, but in our view, if Ms Aiko is the only person around to get her booty eaten, it stands to reason that she must be the source of h. Clearly, this is not the result that Ms. Aiko expects. We implore her to review her theorem and submit a new analytical framework to expose her freak.
**Please note this warning: the conditions are assumed to be additive... Ms. Aiko is not clear. They may very well should be analyzed as multiplicative conditions. We hope to take that approach in an updated post and analyze its results.
A multiplicative approach:
For the benefit of the reader, we must explore a multiplicative approach. From yesterday’s analysis, let us assume a multiplicative analysis, so from above we now have:
b * -h * -s ≥ f
which quite literally mean all conditions at a single point of time t must be met before the freak is exposed. Rearranging, we have
b * ≥ f / (-h * -s), but our denominator has two negative signs which we can rearrange such that:
b ≥ f / (h*s).
We assumed for simplicity, b can only take the values of 0 and 1, h is a non-negative integer and s, for the moment is an unknown. Let examine the case where
b = f / (hs).
In the case where b=0, or, there is no booty eaten, then f must by definition equal zero. No freaks exists in the absence of eaten booty. If h*s = 0, we would have an undefined solution. On the other hand, if b = 1 we now have:
1 = f / (hs)
Let’s assume for simplicity, the one must have a soul or not, so it can only take on values of 0 and 1. This is only an assumption for purposes of analysis as we do not purport to know “how much soul” someone can have (eg. reasonable people can disagree whether Justin Timberlake, for example, is “soulful”). We know that it may range anywhere between 0 and 1, but can possibly take any value in between. It is a relative judgment. Again, we simplify our analysis by only considering the case of 0 and 1. In the case where s = 0, we have an undefined solution – a zombie like state if you will. If s = 1 on the other hand, our equation becomes
1 = f/h or, rearranged, f = h.
What a result! Using a multiplicative analysis, Ms Aiko has literally said, assuming the case where a soul exists, and a booty is being eaten, you must have freak exposure and hoes being equal. I will leave it to the reader to reach their own ultimate conclusions, but in our view, if Ms Aiko is the only person around to get her booty eaten, it stands to reason that she must be the source of h. Clearly, this is not the result that Ms. Aiko expects. We implore her to review her theorem and submit a new analytical framework to expose her freak.
