PlaneShift
Fan Area => The Hydlaa Plaza => Topic started by: Homik on March 16, 2008, 01:22:08 am
-
in recent light of pi day, i have noticed that its distant cousin phi (1.6180339887~) has no day for it (or none that i could find).
I say this is a disgrace! you should all be ashamed of yourselves! imagine a world without music and people/animals who walk funny! how would you like that?! I didn't think you would :@#\
I rest my case >:(
-
\\o// Golden Ratio!!!
-
Yay, Golden Ratio!
Hmm, logically, Phi Day should be on the 6th of January. Or the 61st. :P I'm marking that on my calendar.
-
At 6:03:39 pm? Better use an atomic clock.
-
:'( Sure, let's talk about pi and phi day...
forget about my birthday
-
Xi is a much better letter imo! where's xi day.
-
Phi day, I my opinion should only be celebrated alongside the fibonacci sequence! :-p ;-)
-
I prefer "e"
-
my number (6.0221415 ± 0.0000010) × 1023 is greater than any of the others mentioned, greater than all the others combined!
'av a gad ro bout tat! vernacularly speaking. Want to fight about it?
-
Math fight?
*Homik divides Prolix by 0
What now? :P
-
Thank you for helping me reach nirvana. I am now one with the infinite!
-
Do you guys have to keep talking about maths? It burns my pathetic brains!! :@#\
-
0.99999999999999999999999999999999999......... = 1
HA!
-
i dun like math....
especially after learning about alternate planes and algebras and how 2+2 doesnt always equal 4.... :@#\
-
1 is equal to 2. Math clearly doesn't exist! Lie down and accept that nothing else can possibly exist! You are fake! :thumbup:
a = b a = b
ab = b2 ab = b^2
-(ab) = -(b2) -(ab) = -(b^2)
a2-ab = a2-b2 a^2-ab = a^2-b^2
a(a-b) = (a+b)(a-b) a(a-b) = (a+b)(a-b)
a = a+b a = a+b
a = 2a a = 2a
1 = 2 1 = 2
-
That's a funny one.
EDIT to explain nº2:
Hehe, my last try wasn't correct. I only cared about the end (a=2a) and didn't see it was (a=a^2)
a(a-b) = (a+b)(a-b)
a = a+b
This step here is wrong though. a(a-b) != a. Because a-b is 0 and a multiplied by 0 is 0.
-
1 is equal to 2. Math clearly doesn't exist! Lie down and accept that nothing else can possibly exist! You are fake! :thumbup:
a = b a = b
ab = b2 ab = b^2
-(ab) = -(b2) -(ab) = -(b^2)
a2-ab = a2-b2 a^2-ab = a^2-b^2
a(a-b) = (a+b)(a-b) a(a-b) = (a+b)(a-b)
a = a+b a = a+b
a = 2a a = 2a
1 = 2 1 = 2
i prolly may be definately wrong but i'm pretty sure a = a+b cannot transform to a = 2a....
-
if a=b, a+b would be equal to a+a, which again indeed is the same as 2a.
but you mustnt divide by zero lol
-
If "a = b" then "a + b = 2a" is correct.
Oh, I just noticed something new. The step I noted was wrong, actually isn't. He simplified it correctly... Very strange! Intriguinging puzzle!
-
if a=b, a+b would be equal to a+a, which again indeed is the same as 2a.
but you mustnt divide by zero lol
aha i see..... :oops:
wow thats crazeee stuuf ???
-
hm, i think you got it right, Sangwa, (a-b) is zero considering the included definitions, hence dividing by (a-b) is simply not allowed - or in different words, no valid mathematics lol
-
I believe the error here is in syntax (order of processes). The thought process seems to me to be erroneous because after you establish that a = b, you treat it like b != a and then you turn back to treating it like a = b. Like in a sentence, the math process here loses sense if there is not a logic succession of terms.
EDIT:
The same happens when you have (a-b) which is already established like 0 (because a=b), but is treated like something different.
-
these operations are valid and correct to this certain step. apparently random transformations, except for the invalid division by zero, that simple. after all its about definitions (and hiding by variables).
-
Hey, so many people around this forum and we don't have math teachers? Can't you see we're having trouble here?
-
I do have one :P
-
(http://i224.photobucket.com/albums/dd59/The_Chain_Gang/PiPie.jpg)
I thought pi day was over...weeks ago.. why is this thread still so active! math sucks!
-
:oops: I had a version of that formula, but I didn't want to type it up, so I googled it. That was the wrong one! :oops:
Here's mine:
x=0
a=x
b=x
a=x=b
a=b
(a-b)=(a-b)=0
(1)(a-b)=2(a-b)=0
Now take out those pesky (a-b)'s with some division
1=2
This is possible because there is some formula that lets the division by 0 work in a similar situation.
There are also other 1=2's that don't involve division, if you must...
-
Hey, so many people around this forum and we don't have math teachers? Can't you see we're having trouble here?
I do some tutoring in maths, I'll try to explain it. :)
The only problem is the division by 0, as has been said. It is not allowed to take the (a-b) part out of the equation because (a-b) has been defined as 0. Formally, when you divide both sides of an equation by an undefined variable, you should mention that the new form is only valid under the assumption that the variable does not equal 0. In fact this remark should be made every time you take out a variable by means of division.
For example, when you want to simplify xy=6x you get:
"y=6, under the assumption that x does not equal 0", and not just: "y=6x"
The reasoning of the puzzle can be summarized to:
x=0
1x=2x
1=2
The last line should include the "under the assumption that x does not equal 0"-remark. The assumption is not met, and hence the last form is not valid.
I believe the error here is in syntax (order of processes). The thought process seems to me to be erroneous because after you establish that a = b, you treat it like b != a and then you turn back to treating it like a = b. Like in a sentence, the math process here loses sense if there is not a logic succession of terms.
This is not the real problem. It's not illegal to maintain both the variables, even if the equation can be simplified by expressing one of them in terms of the other.
I hope it's more clear now. :)
-
Hey, so many people around this forum and we don't have math teachers? Can't you see we're having trouble here?
I also have a math teacher ;)
Many math teachers in fact
As you can see, none of them were any good :D
-
SerqFeht,
your last construct comes to the same invalid result by dividing by 0, (a-b) that is. same thing. showing (a-b) to be 0 makes no difference: dividing 0 by zero ((a-b) that is) is invalid too.
why is dividing by 0 invalid? well, how often does 1 contain 0? yep, its not definable.
-
Dividing by zero is actually quite common in calculus. I suppose that is not quite true but taking the limit of an equation f(x) as x-> 0 comes pretty close. You would expect to see an asymptote there. Or have I been out of school too long?
-
:-\
If you must... Here is another proof shamelessly ripped off from somewhere...
Step 1: -1/1 = 1/-1
Step 2: Taking the square root of both sides: sqrt(-1/1) = sqrt(1/-1) (where "sqrt" denotes the square-root symbol which cannot be displayed on text-only browsers.)
Step 3: Simplifying: sqrt(-1) / sqrt(1) = sqrt(1) / sqrt(-1)
Step 4: In other words, i/1 = 1/i.
Step 5: Therefore, i / 2 = 1 / (2i),
Step 6: i/2 + 3/(2i) = 1/(2i) + 3/(2i),
Step 7: i (i/2 + 3/(2i) ) = i ( 1/(2i) + 3/(2i) ),
Step 8: (i^2)/2 + (3i)/2i = i/(2i) + (3i)/(2i),
Step 9: (-1)/2 + 3/2 = 1/2 + 3/2,
Step 10: and this shows that 1=2.
There are more where that came from...
I hate math!!! :@#\
-
you can't sqrt a negative number..... That's something that's has been pounded into my head the last 4 years :P
-
You can in a complex number (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex_number) system.
-
That last one is nice.
The error is in step three however.
sqrt(-1/1) does not equal sqrt(-1)/sqrt(1)
The general rule "sqrt(a/b) = sqrt(a) / sqrt(b)" is only true when a and b are positive real numbers.
I had to look that up though :)
-
And I thought the real problem was that fractional numbers have a minus sign in front of the fraction instead of in the numerator or denominator. It is only when you get a variable as part of the fraction that the minus sign can be applied to it. Indeed, in that case, it is a shorthand for 0-x or -1*x, probably the latter. If the expression made sense it ought to similarly using decimal notation instead. The only time you would see the fractional form with the minus sign in the numerator or denominator and no variables would be in the process of simplification but never as the final result. Even with the variable you would rewrite it.
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6cAs1YBELmA
:whistling:
Edit:
where "sqrt" denotes the square-root symbol which cannot be displayed on text-only browsers.
√2 :)
-
He did specify text based browsers, neko. In the Links text based browser that looks like SQRT2. Then again, if your terminal is set for extended ascii you might be able to use ALT+251. √ =U+221A in unicode terms for sans font. Is that what you did neko or did you use an html entity: "√", or "&radic". This forum does not seem to respect the full set of html entities.
-
I learned many an alt code out of boredom whilst I waste my life away working for the man to get by. It's the little things that get you by day by day.
-
I used the magic of ctrl+c. It's pretty amazing. Who knew keyboards could do such a thing? :whistling: