Recent edits for:

collapse/expand topics back to Main/TriangRelations

topic

01:18:05 PM May 7th 2013

Does anybody know what type Pepper Potts, Tony Stark, and the Iron Man suits fall in? Kevin Feige described this as a love triangle, and consider that said triangle involves two human beings (male and female) and a group of inanimate, non-sentient Powered Armors. As to how this was resolved, Tony orders the suits to be destroyed so he could be with Pepper.

You will need to Get Known in order to post a reply.

topic

06:57:04 AM Apr 6th 2012

Can somebody explain to me why sometimes Claire is used for C and other times Charlie is used?

You will need to Get Known in order to post a reply.

topic

06:08:45 AM Feb 25th 2012

Looking at all the permutations on this page, I was wondering if type 8 should be split into two subtypes:
8a) Mutual affairs. Two of the characters are in a relationship, but each is cheating on the other with the third character.
8b) A genuine three-way relationship/triad, with all three happy and together.

12:10:04 PM Feb 28th 2012

I think that's reasonable. These are two different dynamics in relationships, so they should be distinguished.

You will need to Get Known in order to post a reply.

topic

01:36:43 PM Sep 13th 2011

Hey, could we maybe give the types names in addition to numbers so that non-tropers don't have to tab out to this page whenever a given type is referred to? Also, we REALLY need to merge this with the love triangle page.

You will need to Get Known in order to post a reply.

You will need to Get Known in order to post a reply.

topic

07:20:37 PM Dec 3rd 2010

Can someone explain to me why the page Love Triangle exists if all the examples can be sorted onto this page?

You will need to Get Known in order to post a reply.

topic

05:51:09 PM Aug 18th 2010

Is it just me, or are Type 1 and Type 7 essentially the same thing? Type 1, based on the diagram, implies that A loves two people, and *neither of them cares at all.* Type 7 would be a much more accurate description of most examples of the Betty and Veronica scenario, although here it's described as an "affair". Which it could be, if you look at it a certain way. But most examples of what you have as Type 1, tend to fall into Type 7, at least in theory. This needs fixed.

05:42:09 AM Sep 3rd 2010

Type 1 is where Alice likes both Bob and Charlie but hasn't decided/can't decide which one to get. Type 7 is where Alice is trying to "get" _both_ Bob and Charlie. What distinguishes type 1 from type 7 is that in type 1, Alice knows she can't have both and has to pick one, but is having trouble deciding.
That said, there's another difficult distinction between type 1 and 3. I'd say that it's distinguished by what Alice wants: In type 7 Alice wants both, in type 1 Alice wants one, in type 3 Alice wants neither. But then some of the examples under type 3 (for example, Girl Genius) should be in type 1, right?

04:28:10 PM Nov 3rd 2010

It seems to me that type 7 is the typical scenario, while types 1 and 3 are somewhat unusual. So many of the type 1 and 3 scenarios are really type 7. To me, it's unclear whether the two-way arrow indicates an established relationship or mutual affection. The descriptions of types 1 and 3 seem to indicate that a lack of a two-way arrow is a lack of mutual affection, while the type 7 description seems to be saying that a two-way arrow indicates an established relationship.

03:15:29 AM Jul 9th 2011

edited by MorganWick

edited by MorganWick

I think the problem is that the literal reading of Types 1 and 3 *are* so rare, and the literal reading of Type 7, as the Betty and Veronica trope shows, is so common (in fact, for most people, it's the definition of Love Triangle), that we've narrowed the definition of double-sided arrows for Type 7 only and shoehorned the rest into Types 1 and 3. This is especially the case with Type 1. It doesn't help that the meaning of the double-sided arrow (and sometimes even the single-sided one) seems to change all the time anyway from description to description, but usually the definition is broadened (often to mean "loyalty") to avoid Ho Yay; Type 7's definition comes off as unusually tight.
Literal Type 3 is essentially a proto-Unwanted Harem. Literal Type 1, in my opinion, is underutilized - double unrequited love. It'd be a rather odd story - Alice is torn apart by her affection for Bob and Charlie, while both of them are, in all likelihood, completely oblivious. But then, some of the triangles with all connections filled are rather weird...
Worth noting that when this page was first created, it only had the first eight or nine triangles, as the archived discussion attests, suggesting the diagrams may have been originally meant to only be suggestive or explanatory of the common tropes mentioned on the page, not definitive.

You will need to Get Known in order to post a reply.

topic

01:41:36 PM Aug 14th 2010

it was mu understanding there would be no math.
Chevy Chase
SNL
Tessa

You will need to Get Known in order to post a reply.

topic

01:36:44 PM Aug 14th 2010

edited by Kinitawowi

edited by Kinitawowi

@Fast Eddie: I get the point of trying to trim the page down, but *damn* if you couldn't have picked a worse way to do it. "Limit of three examples per media type" is a simply horrendous distinction (cue "BAWWWWW MY EXAMPLE IS BETTER THAN YOURS"-style arguments), and once again the scythe that's been taken to the article has been done in a sufficiently careless way to leave hanging references dotted around the page.

05:15:19 AM Aug 21st 2010

Actually, you know what? Scratch that - I *don't* get the point. Split it into subpages by type maybe, but until then "it is ABOUT the examples, dorkwoods!".
This also isn't included on the list of Locked Pages. Is "editorial fiat" a valid reason?

You will need to Get Known in order to post a reply.

topic

07:16:40 PM Jul 30th 2010

Triang Relations 13 is described as Alice choosing between B and C, as if the attractions between A and B as well as A and C are mutual. However, the arrows are one-sided, as if A likes B and C but they don't feel the same way.

You will need to Get Known in order to post a reply.

topic

02:00:59 PM Apr 9th 2010

I worked out that if you include another possible relationship (for example, have romantic, platonic, and unknown) the total number of possible triangles is 132. Too bad that that's too much to make for this page.
If you want to check my work, here it is:
(n^6+3*n^3+2*n^2)/6-(n^2+n)/2
which simplifies to
(n^6+3*n^3-n^2-3*n)/6
Totally asymmetric triangles are counted six times in n^6.

Triangles that are only reflection symmetric are counted three times in n^6 and three times in n^3*3.

Triangles that are only rotationally symmetric are counted twice in n^6 and four times in n^2*n (it would be twice in n^2, and I want it to total to six).

Triangles that are reflection symmetric and rotationally symmetric are counted once in n^6, three times in n^3*3, twice in n^2*2.

Now that I counted every triangle six times, I divide the result by six. The problem is, that counts ones where one of the people isn't even in it. (If Alice and Bob are boyfriend/girlfriend, and Carol is a complete stranger, that doesn't qualify as a love triangle.) So now I take those out. Triangles that are asymmetric are counted twice in n^2.

Triangles that are mirror-symmetric are counted once in n^2 and once in n. One of these is also rotationally symmetric, but it's still counted the same number of times.

Then I divide by two and subtract from the original.

Triangles that are only reflection symmetric are counted three times in n^6 and three times in n^3*3.

Triangles that are only rotationally symmetric are counted twice in n^6 and four times in n^2*n (it would be twice in n^2, and I want it to total to six).

Triangles that are reflection symmetric and rotationally symmetric are counted once in n^6, three times in n^3*3, twice in n^2*2.

Now that I counted every triangle six times, I divide the result by six. The problem is, that counts ones where one of the people isn't even in it. (If Alice and Bob are boyfriend/girlfriend, and Carol is a complete stranger, that doesn't qualify as a love triangle.) So now I take those out. Triangles that are asymmetric are counted twice in n^2.

Triangles that are mirror-symmetric are counted once in n^2 and once in n. One of these is also rotationally symmetric, but it's still counted the same number of times.

Then I divide by two and subtract from the original.

10:18:21 PM Sep 10th 2010

So, I tried to graph out all the possible combinations of love triangles and I only came up with 48 possible comblinations. I figured A could love or not love B, and he could also love or not love B and for all of the optioins he could be requited or unrequited. Repeat for B and C (just change the letters around). So yeah...

01:18:53 PM Sep 13th 2011

Up to isomorphism, there are only the 13 listed here. All the extra ones are rotations, reflections, and polarity swaps of each other.

06:42:34 AM Nov 18th 2011

The amount of possible relationships between n persons (considering isomorphic cases equal) is the number of connected digraphs with n nodes. If you are curious to know how many there are for other number of people, it's http://oeis.org/A003085

12:35:05 PM Jan 29th 2013

He shall forever be but a number to us.... What is the equation that one uses to come up with thirteen? If duplicates are implied to happen (with all letters being "x" instead of a, b, and c) then it should be possible to find this out with less work (though finding said equation would prove to be more work, but if you can make an equation that can be made flexible for the amount of people involved in one "triangle" or, more accuartely, a love sqruare, it would be worth it in the end.) I figure that this is something that would be helpful to the squence/series part of algebra (unless it already exists). Does anyone know? (I'm a math geek, get over it.)

You will need to Get Known in order to post a reply.

back to Main/TriangRelations

TV Tropes by
TV Tropes Foundation, LLC is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.

Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available from thestaff@tvtropes.org.

Privacy Policy

Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available from thestaff@tvtropes.org.

Privacy Policy