Math Question

[Metsfanmax]

I guess anyone that has taken a complex analysis class should know that one immediately. For those that didn't quite follow that, just realize that what's going on is exactly the same as in the following example:
cos( 0 ) = 1 = cos( 2*pi )
Take the arccosine of both sides and get
0 = 2*pi

Actually, for whatever reason, I haven't yet taken a complex analysis class. I happened to learn that bit about logarithms in quantum mechanics, actually, lol...

[sherkaner]

Stupid mathematics, this is another standard one:
x = y (should always be valid)
x^2 = y^2 (we can raise the power of both sides)
x^2 - xy = y^2 - xy (and add some number to both sides)
x(x - y) = y(y-x) (rewriting)
x(x - y) = -y(x-y) (more rewriting)
x = -y (And removing the parts that are the same)

Seems like x = y = 0, but we started in a situation where any number could be put in, so 1 = -1 holds?

[Dako]

Nice division by zero ;-).

[Lord and Master]

A silly one:

Girls take up time and money and the more time you're with them, the more money they cost you so...
Girls = Time x Money
But Mime = money so Time x Money = Money^2...
Girls = Money^2
But Money is the (square) root of all Evil so Money^2 = (sqrt Evil)^2 = Evil...
Girls = Evil

[Doc_Brown]

Stupid mathematics, this is another standard one:
x = y (should always be valid)
x^2 = y^2 (we can raise the power of both sides)
x^2 - xy = y^2 - xy (and add some number to both sides)
x(x - y) = y(y-x) (rewriting)
x(x - y) = -y(x-y) (more rewriting)
x = -y (And removing the parts that are the same)

Seems like x = y = 0, but we started in a situation where any number could be put in, so 1 = -1 holds?

"Removing the parts that are the same" means dividing out the common factor in this case. Since x=y (by initial assumption), (x - y) = 0. When you divide by zero (as Dako noted) you can get all kinds of fun results!

[maasman]

I guess there was an answer to this:
http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=2615#comic

[Woodruff]

How has Victor Sullivan not found this thread?

[maasman]

How has Victor Sullivan not found this thread?

I have no idea.

[WILLIAMS5232]

in real life i'm a surveyor of the earth, so i use math to an extent for work. i used to enjoy thinking about mathematics. as of late, I've found there's no real reason for me to do so and i'm so much happier now. technology will ruin math one day i'm certain.

but here's a usergroup that you can get all touchy feely about the subject with.

Y=MX+B

[ender516]

How has Victor Sullivan not found this thread?

I have no idea.

Should we tell him?

[Gen.LeeGettinhed]

The real question is whether .999... = 1

I believe that already has its own thread and broke down into name calling and feces throwing.

gonna have to be more specific AoG. "broken down into name calling and feces throwing" sounds like a LOT of threads.

[Victor Sullivan]

How has Victor Sullivan not found this thread?

I have no idea.

Should we tell him?

Sorry, was grabbing a cup of coffee when some jackass in front of me convinced the cashier to divide by zero on the register. That's seven years of my life I'm not getting back Stupid spontaneous black holes defying the laws of physics.

-Sully

[jonesthecurl]

Wat a singular experience.

[Pope Joan]

These are called Ackerman numbers, LOL
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ackermann_function

[ender516]

I remember a computing assignment (first year university? second?) where we were required to code the two-variable Ackermann function. A straight-forward recursive implementation would blow up past the system limits very quickly, so we had to find other means.

[Haggis_McMutton]

I remember a computing assignment (first year university? second?) where we were required to code the two-variable Ackermann function. A straight-forward recursive implementation would blow up past the system limits very quickly, so we had to find other means.

[maasman]

Because I still remember this topic, and I have found something that explains this better than the comic I posted 3 years ago:
http://waitbutwhy.com/2014/11/1000000-grahams-number.html

[crispybits]

See when we discussed Graham's number all that time ago (in another thread I think) I kinda got it, or so I thought...

Now seeing it laid out like that - wow! I wasn't even close to understanding just how utterly crazy that number is...

[maasman]

Yeah, after reading that article it made graham's number much more understandable.