Google90 Posted January 15, 2006 Share Posted January 15, 2006 Freaky...all calculations turn out to be equal[/img] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
runesmithie Posted January 15, 2006 Share Posted January 15, 2006 Can't divide by zero ;) Edit: was thinking of the wrong one Edit edit: Can't believe I wasted my 4,000th post on this >.< I just posted something! ^_^ to the terrorist...er... kirbybeam. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Google90 Posted January 15, 2006 Author Share Posted January 15, 2006 Can't divide by zero ;) Edit: was thinking of the wrong one yes..u were lOl Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
runesmithie Posted January 15, 2006 Share Posted January 15, 2006 Can't divide by zero ;) Edit: was thinking of the wrong one yes..u were lOl I can't find it yet, but I don't like the looks of that square root near the end I just posted something! ^_^ to the terrorist...er... kirbybeam. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
logic-is-overrated Posted January 15, 2006 Share Posted January 15, 2006 I do believe that when you have (x)^2 = (-x)^2 you can't get rid of the power because a number does not equal its negative. That might be wrong and I could have no idea what I'm talking about but I do believe that's right. Either way, Chuck Norris would know. This is the way the world ends. Look at this [bleep]ing shit we're in man. Not with a bang, but with a whimper. And with a whimper, I'm splitting, Jack. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rocketman089 Posted January 15, 2006 Share Posted January 15, 2006 Can't divide by zero ;) Actually, Chuck Norris can divide by zero. Gamertag: King Arizona Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
runesmithie Posted January 15, 2006 Share Posted January 15, 2006 Can't divide by zero ;) Actually, Chuck Norris can divide by zero. But he's not here...... or is he :D I just posted something! ^_^ to the terrorist...er... kirbybeam. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mad4u689 Posted January 15, 2006 Share Posted January 15, 2006 Yeah, it's that square root towards the end. Or, more accurately, the squaring in the first place. If you take one of the square roots to be the negative square root, then: (a - t/2)^2 = (-b + t/2)^2 so (a - t/2) = (-b +t/2) so a+b = t/2 + t/2 = t And, as you would have guessed, t = a + b is simply the premise you started with. When you square anything, as you did earlier on in the problem, you get a second alternate possible answer that may or may not exist. You have to check to make sure it's right. In this case, that's what leads you to the false conclusion that a=b. Everybody hug and spread the love :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
logic-is-overrated Posted January 15, 2006 Share Posted January 15, 2006 Can't divide by zero ;) Actually, Chuck Norris can divide by zero. But he's not here...... or is he :DChuck Norris is everywhere. The problem with that theorem is this I believe: They go from (a-t/2)^2=(b-t/2)^2 To a-t/2=b-t/2 If you plug in for example 5 for a and 6 for b then you come up with this: 5-11/2 = 5-5.5 = -0.5 for the first side and 6-11/2 = 6-5.5 = 0.5 They could have went ahead and squared the equations using the postulate (x)^2 = (-x)^2 but to find the square root of both sides like they did leaves a positive number equaling a negative number which is not possible. Of course I could be wrong; i'm not really sure. *edit* I think the person above me explained it. This is the way the world ends. Look at this [bleep]ing shit we're in man. Not with a bang, but with a whimper. And with a whimper, I'm splitting, Jack. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
knives669 Posted January 15, 2006 Share Posted January 15, 2006 :shock: Too... many... numbers... :shock: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eeeeediot Posted January 15, 2006 Share Posted January 15, 2006 Yup, logic and mad are correct :) I figured it out before scrolling down through the replies ^-^ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AThousandLies Posted January 15, 2006 Share Posted January 15, 2006 Maybe I'm missing something, but doesn't the fact that t = a + b mean that t > a and t > b, thus making this whole thing irrelevant? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mad4u689 Posted January 15, 2006 Share Posted January 15, 2006 Maybe I'm missing something, but doesn't the fact that t = a + b mean that t > a and t > b, thus making this whole thing irrelevant? No, because you're starting with the premise that t = a + b. It doesn't matter if a and b are less than t; that would be part of the premise. Nevertheless, it doesn't mean that, because either a could be negative and b positive, or vice versa, making t a smaller number than one of them. Everybody hug and spread the love :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest GhostRanger Posted January 15, 2006 Share Posted January 15, 2006 Maybe I'm missing something, but doesn't the fact that t = a + b mean that t > a and t > b, thus making this whole thing irrelevant? No, because you're starting with the premise that t = a + b. It doesn't matter if a and b are less than t; that would be part of the premise. Nevertheless, it doesn't mean that, because either a could be negative and b positive, or vice versa, making t a smaller number than one of them. Hmm...I'm not very good at math so maybe you can explain this to me. You said that either A or B could be negative making t smaller than one of them. If that's true... then that would mean a is not equal to b. Doesn't the entire premise of the equation doesn't work? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
runesmithie Posted January 16, 2006 Share Posted January 16, 2006 Maybe I'm missing something, but doesn't the fact that t = a + b mean that t > a and t > b, thus making this whole thing irrelevant? No, because you're starting with the premise that t = a + b. It doesn't matter if a and b are less than t; that would be part of the premise. Nevertheless, it doesn't mean that, because either a could be negative and b positive, or vice versa, making t a smaller number than one of them. Hmm...I'm not very good at math so maybe you can explain this to me. You said that either A or B could be negative making t smaller than one of them. If that's true... then that would mean a is not equal to b. Doesn't the entire premise of the equation doesn't work? a doesn't need to equal b :P I think you're thinking of the classic 1=2 ? I just posted something! ^_^ to the terrorist...er... kirbybeam. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uk_swat Posted January 16, 2006 Share Posted January 16, 2006 Omg you lot are too clever. 23 whip pks,3 dhorka,2 ahrims lvl 119 attack 99 strength 99 and defence 92 plus 94 mage Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest GhostRanger Posted January 16, 2006 Share Posted January 16, 2006 Maybe I'm missing something, but doesn't the fact that t = a + b mean that t > a and t > b, thus making this whole thing irrelevant? No, because you're starting with the premise that t = a + b. It doesn't matter if a and b are less than t; that would be part of the premise. Nevertheless, it doesn't mean that, because either a could be negative and b positive, or vice versa, making t a smaller number than one of them. Hmm...I'm not very good at math so maybe you can explain this to me. You said that either A or B could be negative making t smaller than one of them. If that's true... then that would mean a is not equal to b. Doesn't the entire premise of the equation doesn't work? a doesn't need to equal b :P I think you're thinking of the classic 1=2 ? Well I'm not very good at math so I don't even know if I'm thinking of the classic 1=2. I guess I'm just going to have to settle with me never being able to understand this... :P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cadburys_egg Posted January 16, 2006 Share Posted January 16, 2006 Maybe I'm missing something, but doesn't the fact that t = a + b mean that t > a and t > b, thus making this whole thing irrelevant? No, because you're starting with the premise that t = a + b. It doesn't matter if a and b are less than t; that would be part of the premise. Nevertheless, it doesn't mean that, because either a could be negative and b positive, or vice versa, making t a smaller number than one of them. Hmm...I'm not very good at math so maybe you can explain this to me. You said that either A or B could be negative making t smaller than one of them. If that's true... then that would mean a is not equal to b. Doesn't the entire premise of the equation doesn't work? a doesn't need to equal b :P I think you're thinking of the classic 1=2 ? Count me among those few :oops: After a few retries though, it seems pretty accurate... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now