January 15, 200620 yr 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.
January 15, 200620 yr Author Can't divide by zero ;) Edit: was thinking of the wrong one yes..u were lOl
January 15, 200620 yr 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.
January 15, 200620 yr 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.
January 15, 200620 yr Can't divide by zero ;) Actually, Chuck Norris can divide by zero. Gamertag: King Arizona
January 15, 200620 yr 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.
January 15, 200620 yr 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
January 15, 200620 yr 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.
January 15, 200620 yr Yup, logic and mad are correct :) I figured it out before scrolling down through the replies ^-^
January 15, 200620 yr 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?
January 15, 200620 yr 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
January 15, 200620 yr 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?
January 16, 200620 yr 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.
January 16, 200620 yr 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
January 16, 200620 yr 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
January 16, 200620 yr 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...
Create an account or sign in to comment