Show us your math genius

If it doesn't fit elsewhere, it should go here
User avatar
JWinslow23
Posts: 139
Joined: 06 Feb 2013, 01:05

Post » 06 May 2013, 23:56

An alternate formula for phi:

Code: Select all

         ________
        /  __
       / \/45+5
 \    / --------
  \  /      __
   \/     \/20
Phi is the golden ratio, the sum of 1 and the square root of 5 divided by 2,

Code: Select all

    _
1+\/5
-----
  2
I found that out myself!

Do you have any mathematical oddities to share?

User avatar
Firaga
Posts: 931
Joined: 02 Jul 2012, 16:05

Post » 07 May 2013, 00:07

Code: Select all

2 + 2 = 5

User avatar
HansAgain
Posts: 1103
Joined: 03 Feb 2012, 18:51

Post » 07 May 2013, 00:08

Firaga41 wrote:

Code: Select all

2 + 2 = 5
Just amazing.
Image

User avatar
Qcode
Posts: 1472
Joined: 05 Feb 2012, 18:00

Post » 07 May 2013, 00:12

Code: Select all

x = 0

Code: Select all

x + x = x
Add x to both sides

Code: Select all

2x = x
Combine like terms

Code: Select all

2 = 1
Divide by X
(Originally by someone else from here)
Last edited by Qcode on 07 May 2013, 00:16, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Qcode
Posts: 1472
Joined: 05 Feb 2012, 18:00

Post » 07 May 2013, 00:13

(Accidental double post)
Last edited by Qcode on 07 May 2013, 00:15, edited 1 time in total.

Camewel
Posts: 2996
Joined: 02 Feb 2012, 21:32

Post » 07 May 2013, 00:14

This thread is awful and you should feel bad about making it.

And I'm not even joking here this is just an utterly awful thread.
also hi qcode that was mine

User avatar
BobTheLawyer
Posts: 2232
Joined: 01 May 2012, 21:00

Post » 07 May 2013, 00:21

Qcode wrote:

Code: Select all

x = 0
Divide by X
My genius, divide by 0 error. :P

Camewel
Posts: 2996
Joined: 02 Feb 2012, 21:32

Post » 07 May 2013, 00:24

Novice mistake there Bob, it's actually fine to divide by X there, no matter what value it has, because both sides contain X so you're just cancelling it out of the equation.

User avatar
BobTheLawyer
Posts: 2232
Joined: 01 May 2012, 21:00

Post » 07 May 2013, 00:28

No... It... It can't be true...

User avatar
Qcode
Posts: 1472
Joined: 05 Feb 2012, 18:00

Post » 07 May 2013, 00:33

The real problem is when you add to both sides.

Code: Select all

x + x = 0 + x
Since x = 0, it should be simplified to

Code: Select all

x + x = x + x

User avatar
popcan12
Posts: 592
Joined: 10 Feb 2012, 02:30

Post » 07 May 2013, 01:20

64+64x2x2= 320
...I can't live anymore.
Last edited by popcan12 on 07 May 2013, 01:41, edited 1 time in total.

Camewel
Posts: 2996
Joined: 02 Feb 2012, 21:32

Post » 07 May 2013, 01:22

popcan12 wrote:64+64x2x2= 512
Wrong.

If you're "trolling herp derp sarcasms" you're pretty bad at it.

User avatar
popcan12
Posts: 592
Joined: 10 Feb 2012, 02:30

Post » 07 May 2013, 01:35

Wrong why? Is it because there's no spaces?

Edit: Just realized, you're right, I forgot order of operations...

User avatar
rokit
Posts: 2095
Joined: 03 Feb 2012, 00:47

Post » 07 May 2013, 18:47

(it's not that hard to just go on google)

Image
Image

totally made it myself

User avatar
popcan12
Posts: 592
Joined: 10 Feb 2012, 02:30

Post » 08 May 2013, 01:46

Rokit boy wrote:(It's not that hard to just go on google).
Image
Image
Totally made it myself.
Yes, totally Mr. Wikimedia.

User avatar
BobTheLawyer
Posts: 2232
Joined: 01 May 2012, 21:00

Post » 09 May 2013, 02:16

x = 3

User avatar
TheJonyMyster
Posts: 1795
Joined: 03 Sep 2012, 05:12

Post » 10 May 2013, 03:55

22/7 isn't actually pi.
*gasp*

User avatar
Qcode
Posts: 1472
Joined: 05 Feb 2012, 18:00

Post » 10 May 2013, 04:03

Its actually only 3.14 that matches with both. Also it's a basic law of math that irrational numbers can't be expressed as fractions.

User avatar
BobTheLawyer
Posts: 2232
Joined: 01 May 2012, 21:00

Post » 10 May 2013, 13:03

There is no fraction to represent .999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999...
At least in my logic, which would make it the only repeating number without a fraction (though if you added any Integer, it would still probably not be able to be a fraction.)

Camewel
Posts: 2996
Joined: 02 Feb 2012, 21:32

Post » 10 May 2013, 17:52

Here's a fraction to represent it:

1/1

User avatar
Qcode
Posts: 1472
Joined: 05 Feb 2012, 18:00

Post » 10 May 2013, 20:46

BobTheLawyer wrote:There is no fraction to represent .999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999...
A consistent repeating number doesn't count as an irrational number.

User avatar
BobTheLawyer
Posts: 2232
Joined: 01 May 2012, 21:00

Post » 10 May 2013, 20:50

I didn't say it was an irrational number, and Camewel, those aren't equivalent.

User avatar
Qcode
Posts: 1472
Joined: 05 Feb 2012, 18:00

Post » 10 May 2013, 20:57

He's right.

Code: Select all

x = .999999...
Therefore

Code: Select all

10x = 9.99999999...
Now subtract x from both sides of the previous equation.

Code: Select all

9x = 9.999999... - .9999999...

Code: Select all

9x = 9
Divide by 9.

Code: Select all

x = 1
.9 repeating = 1.

User avatar
Automatik
Posts: 1073
Joined: 20 Jul 2012, 17:54

Post » 10 May 2013, 21:22

Additionally:

Code: Select all

x=1/3
x=0.33333333333...
x=x*3
x=0.99999999999...
x=(1/3)*3
x=3/3
x=1

User avatar
BobTheLawyer
Posts: 2232
Joined: 01 May 2012, 21:00

Post » 10 May 2013, 21:39

Qcode wrote:He's right.

Code: Select all

10x = 9.99999999...
Now subtract x from both sides of the previous equation.

Code: Select all

9x = 9.999999... - .9999999...
You must keep like terms!!!
9x - .999999... = 9
Anyways, in your theory, it should be,
9.000...1x = 9
No rounding in math!!!
Automatik wrote:Additionally:

Code: Select all

x=1/3
x=0.33333333333...
x=x*3
x=0.99999999999...
x=(1/3)*3
x=3/3
x=1
You are forgetting why 1/3 = .333333...
Because you are slicing 1 into 3 parts.
It cannot truly equal .333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333 or whatever because it goes infinetly small. Never to a four, but always bigger and bigger.
This is so when it combines with 2/3, which = .66666...
It equals 1
If you added up the numbers, you should get .999999999999999999999999999999999999999999..., but that destroys the value of 1/3 and reduces it.
You can never truly put a decimal for 1/3, without increasing or decreasing its value.
.3333333... is symbolizing how it goes infinitely on.
.99999999999999999... would be the number you would start on if I said x < 1
By putting .999999... = 1, you would therefore obliterate the difference between < and <=

User avatar
Automatik
Posts: 1073
Joined: 20 Jul 2012, 17:54

Post » 10 May 2013, 21:43

" but that destroys the value of 1/3 and reduces it."
No, why?
Also, there is a wikipedia article on it.
In mathematics, the repeating decimal 0.999... (sometimes written with more or fewer 9s before the final ellipsis, or as 0.9, , 0.(9)) denotes a real number that can be shown to be the number one. In other words, the symbols "0.999..." and "1" represent the same number. Proofs of this equality have been formulated with varying degrees of mathematical rigor, taking into account preferred development of the real numbers, background assumptions, historical context, and target audience.
Last edited by Automatik on 10 May 2013, 21:47, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
JWinslow23
Posts: 139
Joined: 06 Feb 2013, 01:05

Post » 10 May 2013, 21:44

Image

Before I root you, are you over 18?

If the expression equals 0, u=0.

If the expression does not equal 0,there is no solution.

User avatar
BobTheLawyer
Posts: 2232
Joined: 01 May 2012, 21:00

Post » 10 May 2013, 21:48

This doesn't make any sense...
This totally defeats the difference between < and <=...

User avatar
Automatik
Posts: 1073
Joined: 20 Jul 2012, 17:54

Post » 10 May 2013, 21:49

Again, why?
Since .999999999999999999999999... is 1.
There is really no difference between the two numbers.
1-.99999999999999999...=0.00000000000000000000000000...=0

User avatar
BobTheLawyer
Posts: 2232
Joined: 01 May 2012, 21:00

Post » 10 May 2013, 21:54

Because. Then you loose the concept of being infinitely close, without being equal.

User avatar
Qcode
Posts: 1472
Joined: 05 Feb 2012, 18:00

Post » 10 May 2013, 21:56

And how does that effect the less than or equal to statement. Just assume that .9 repeating = 1 and anything less than .9 repeating is less than 1.

User avatar
Automatik
Posts: 1073
Joined: 20 Jul 2012, 17:54

Post » 10 May 2013, 21:57

infinitely close=equal
And again, it has been proven

User avatar
BobTheLawyer
Posts: 2232
Joined: 01 May 2012, 21:00

Post » 10 May 2013, 21:58

I defy math

User avatar
rokit
Posts: 2095
Joined: 03 Feb 2012, 00:47

Post » 10 May 2013, 22:55

if you cut 1 into 3 equal parts all of them will be .33 recurring.
so 0.33 * 3 recurring should be 1.

yet if you think about it at first 0.99.. recurring can't be equal to 1 because it will 0.00..001 away from it.

yet, math always proves itself wrong. there are theories about 1 being equal to 2 and such.

Code: Select all

a and b are equal and are both non zero values
so if a = b then
aa = ab
or
a² = ab
a² - b² = ab - b² because it's still balanced
so (a-b)(a+b) = b(a-b) (factorize)
divide out (a-b) leaves us with a+b = b and since a = b, b+b = b
so 2b = b
divide by b
2 = 1 
yet substituting that with numbers

Code: Select all

1=1
1² = 1*1
1² - 1² = 1*1 - 1² still balanced
(1-1)*(1+1) = 1*(1-1) so basically 0=0 so far so it makes sense
since the next step is divide out (a-b) we have run into a problem, because it will always be zero. 
continuing...
(1+1) = 1
2 = 1
i dunno man, maths

User avatar
TheSeek
Posts: 486
Joined: 21 Mar 2012, 06:31

Post » 10 May 2013, 23:16

rokit boy wrote: yet, math always proves itself wrong. there are theories about 1 being equal to 2 and such.

Code: Select all

a and b are equal and are both non zero values
so if a = b then
aa = ab
or
a² = ab
a² - b² = ab - b² because it's still balanced
so (a-b)(a+b) = b(a-b) (factorize)
divide out (a-b) leaves us with a+b = b and since a = b, b+b = b
so 2b = b
divide by b
2 = 1 
yet substituting that with numbers

Code: Select all

1=1
1² = 1*1
1² - 1² = 1*1 - 1² still balanced
(1-1)*(1+1) = 1*(1-1) so basically 0=0 so far so it makes sense
since the next step is divide out (a-b) we have run into a problem, because it will always be zero. 
continuing...
(1+1) = 1
2 = 1
i dunno man, maths
uhm...
rokit boy wrote: yet if you think about it at first 0.99.. recurring can't be equal to 1 because it will 0.00..001 away from it.
if it will 0.000..001 away from it, then it's 0.99...9998, not 0.999...

Camewel
Posts: 2996
Joined: 02 Feb 2012, 21:32

Post » 11 May 2013, 00:46

There is no such thing as being infinitely close to but not equal with real numbers. With real numbers, there is always another number between two given numbers. If there is no number between the two numbers, then the two numbers have to be equal. Watch this video I don't have the effort to convince you properly.

Also, this thread was meant to be "show off your maths genius" not "display your incompetence" so Bob you're doing it wrong.

User avatar
BobTheLawyer
Posts: 2232
Joined: 01 May 2012, 21:00

Post » 11 May 2013, 01:12

Camewel wrote:Also, this thread was meant to be "show off your maths genius" not "display your incompetence" so Bob you're doing it wrong.
:(

User avatar
rokit
Posts: 2095
Joined: 03 Feb 2012, 00:47

Post » 11 May 2013, 02:09

TheSeek wrote:
rokit boy wrote: yet, math always proves itself wrong. there are theories about 1 being equal to 2 and such.

Code: Select all

a and b are equal and are both non zero values
so if a = b then
aa = ab
or
a² = ab
a² - b² = ab - b² because it's still balanced
so (a-b)(a+b) = b(a-b) (factorize)
divide out (a-b) leaves us with a+b = b and since a = b, b+b = b
so 2b = b
divide by b
2 = 1 
yet substituting that with numbers

Code: Select all

1=1
1² = 1*1
1² - 1² = 1*1 - 1² still balanced
(1-1)*(1+1) = 1*(1-1) so basically 0=0 so far so it makes sense
since the next step is divide out (a-b) we have run into a problem, because it will always be zero. 
continuing...
(1+1) = 1
2 = 1
i dunno man, maths
uhm...
rokit boy wrote: yet if you think about it at first 0.99.. recurring can't be equal to 1 because it will 0.00..001 away from it.
if it will 0.000..001 away from it, then it's 0.99...9998, not 0.999...
1) i have no idea why you pointed it out that i got it from the internet. wasn't it so obvious?
2) im assuming that 0.99... is not equal to 1. also, 0.99..998 + 0.00..001 = 0.99...

Camewel
Posts: 2996
Joined: 02 Feb 2012, 21:32

Post » 11 May 2013, 02:50

0.999999... is equal to one though. That's like saying "I'm assuming 1/2 isn't equal to 2/4" it's garbage and meaningless.

User avatar
TheSeek
Posts: 486
Joined: 21 Mar 2012, 06:31

Post » 11 May 2013, 03:27

rokit boy wrote: 1) i have no idea why you pointed it out that i got it from the internet. wasn't it so obvious?
clearly you didnt read what it was in the link...i pointed out that the logic you used has fallacies, and that link shows why
rokit boy wrote: 2) im assuming that 0.99... is not equal to 1. also, 0.99..998 + 0.00..001 = 0.99...
failing hard at simple math...
0.999...9998 is not a repeating decimal cuz in this case the 9 doesnt repeat endlessly(like a repeating decimal would) cuz it ends in 8. So 0.99..998 + 0.00..001 = 0.99(a definite decimal), not 0.99...(a repeating decimal), which is very different.