Does 2a=A? EDITED

[Papopapo456]

It only works if a=0.
And then, you're just dividing by zero.
Your friend didn't break math, he only found out that two variables can both be equal to 0.

Exactly.

1 = 1

1 * 1 = 1 * 1

1 - 1 = 1 - 1


(1 - 1) * (1 + 1) = 1 * (1 - 1)


1 + 1 = 1

2 = 1

He only found that equation can be solved only by replacing the letters (Literal Factor?) with 0. All the other numbers "break" the equation.

EDIT: Improved the order

 

[Rezfon]

it's just bad algebra. He messes up on the third stage.

b^2 = a*a = a*b

therefore by taking away b^2 he is effectively bringing both sides to 0. Then he choose to divide by (a-b) which will always be 0 due to the fact it was stated at the top that a = b.
So he seems to have missed those 2 small facts.

 

[Veret]

Wasn't gonna post, but I'm just too nerdy to pass this one up.

First, let me paraphrase the dozen or so people above me who have already found the flaw: a = b, so a - b = 0. Therefore, when you divide both sides by (a - b), you're really dividing by zero, which is illegal. Math wasn't broken, because you weren't doing proper math in the first place. But that wasn't what I wanted to talk about; this was:

Also, he got this from 4chan. This is oooooooooold

Older, in fact, than 4chan. I'm sure the idea has been around for the better part of a century at least, although Charles Seife illustrated it most dramatically in his book Zero: The Biography of a Dangerous Idea, when he mathematically proved [http://books.google.com/books?id=obJ70nxVYFUC&dq=zero+charles+seife&printsec=frontcover&source=bl&ots=JMdy0QWh8l&sig=u-SOkKseAMTGE7IYgryXzUQZxjU&hl=en&ei=XL0MSr6IJI-cMoHdqbMG&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3#PPA217,M1] that Winston Churchill is a carrot.

Ok, yeah. Back to lurking now.

 

[Imat]

time = money
women = time x money
women = money^2
money = sqrt(evil)
women = sqrt(evil)^2
women = evil

Proven mathematically. QED.

And I won't solve your friend's "breaking math" math problem, because it's been solved several times throughout this thread. Dividing by 0 is fun and all, but not really practical...

How can women be time x money AND money^2?

I should just *facepalm*
But instead I'm gonna be much meaner and patronize you, so here goes:

Say you have a letter, a, which is actually a random variable (Yes folks, anything goes for this variable). Suppose a equals some other variable b. Simply, a = b. Still following? Good. Now, let's say a third variable, c, is equal to a multiplied by b. c = a x b. Now, we know from previous statements that a = b, and b = a. Therefore we can say that c = a x a. a x a = a^2 correct? So it's not an huge leap to say c = a^2. Now let's go ahead and assign values to these variables. c = women, a = money, and b = time. Put it all together and we get women = money^2. Simple enough?

Even if that were sarcasm, at least I got the question answered for the next few posts, right?

BTW, is patronizing another member grounds for suspension/probation/ban?

 

[Seldon2639]

Edit: I am using a model provided by a poster (sms_117b), all the stuff that he added my friend said when he explained it to me, but I forgot when transferring it here. Sorry for confusion, but here is real equation.

This is an interesting string of equations that my friend came up with during school today, claiming that he "broke math". I don't really understand it but here it is anyway:

a = b

Multiply both sides by a
a * a = b * a

subtract b^2 from both sides
a^2 - b^2 = a * b - b^2

Expand to brackets
(a - b) * (a + b)= b * (a - b)

divide by (a - b)
a + b = b

2a = a as a = b

So what do you guys think? Does this make sense to you, or is my friend just an idiot?

Your friend's an idiot. Multiplying by zero is the only way to make it work, and anything multiplied by zero is equal to anything else multiplied by zero. It's here that the insanity begins:

Expand to brackets
(a - b) * (a + b)= b * (a - b)

(a - b) = 0 (since any number subtracted from itself is zero, and a = b)

Thus:

(a + b) * 0 = b * 0

It works, but in a "gee duh, this was bad math" kind of way.

 

[Seldon2639]

time = money
women = time x money
women = money^2
money = sqrt(evil)
women = sqrt(evil)^2
women = evil

Proven mathematically. QED.

And I won't solve your friend's "breaking math" math problem, because it's been solved several times throughout this thread. Dividing by 0 is fun and all, but not really practical...

How can women be time x money AND money^2?

I should just *facepalm*
But instead I'm gonna be much meaner and patronize you, so here goes:

Say you have a letter, a, which is actually a random variable (Yes folks, anything goes for this variable). Suppose a equals some other variable b. Simply, a = b. Still following? Good. Now, let's say a third variable, c, is equal to a multiplied by b. c = a x b. Now, we know from previous statements that a = b, and b = a. Therefore we can say that c = a x a. a x a = a^2 correct? So it's not an huge leap to say c = a^2. Now let's go ahead and assign values to these variables. c = women, a = money, and b = time. Put it all together and we get women = money^2. Simple enough?

Even if that were sarcasm, at least I got the question answered for the next few posts, right?

BTW, is patronizing another member grounds for suspension/probation/ban?

This is another one of those mixing semantics with math/classical logic that's so much fun in middle school. Then you realize that words don't usually have literal mathematical meanings, you stop making dangling modifier jokes, and presumably stop being an idiot. See also:

Nothing is better than sex
Masturbation is better than nothing
therefore: masturbation is better than sex.

You can see the screw up there, so let's take a look at our women = evil problem. Even if we accept as a given that time is directly equal to money (which still makes no sense, since money and time are expressed in different units, but okay).

Women cannot be presumed to be "equal" to time and money, since we have not established any such equivalence. All we can accept is that women take some time and some money (rather than the totality of the woman being equal to the time and money). Similarly, money being the "root" of all evil is not an indication that it is the square root of all evil. Unless we've all age regressed back past youth, and straight into mental retardation, that's pretty obvious. True, if you simply replace them all with variables, you can find that given your definitions, you can show that the variables line up, but that's just sophistry.

Beyond that, take a look at the units, for a moment, which is where the first big mathematical hurdle is. Time is expressed (usually) in seconds, minutes, hours, days, weeks, months, years, decades, centuries, millenia, ect. Money is expressed in none of those terms, so there's no way to have money^2 (let's say 4.00$^2)= Money (2.00$) * Time (2.00s), or 4 $s= Time (4s^2) , but that's the only way this works. Hell, multiple times you have to come up with dollars squared, which doesn't make any kind of sense.

Your sarcasm is misplaced, and I would politely request that you apologize to your fellow Escapist. He is correct from a mathematical perspective, given that we must take units into account for objects with units. Now, you could say that it's the non-unit amount of time which is equal to the non-unit amount of money, but that's like saying 100km = 100cm, once you remove the units, which just makes you sound like a doofus.

 

[Imat]

time = money
women = time x money
women = money^2
money = sqrt(evil)
women = sqrt(evil)^2
women = evil

Proven mathematically. QED.

And I won't solve your friend's "breaking math" math problem, because it's been solved several times throughout this thread. Dividing by 0 is fun and all, but not really practical...

How can women be time x money AND money^2?

I should just *facepalm*
But instead I'm gonna be much meaner and patronize you, so here goes:

Say you have a letter, a, which is actually a random variable (Yes folks, anything goes for this variable). Suppose a equals some other variable b. Simply, a = b. Still following? Good. Now, let's say a third variable, c, is equal to a multiplied by b. c = a x b. Now, we know from previous statements that a = b, and b = a. Therefore we can say that c = a x a. a x a = a^2 correct? So it's not an huge leap to say c = a^2. Now let's go ahead and assign values to these variables. c = women, a = money, and b = time. Put it all together and we get women = money^2. Simple enough?

Even if that were sarcasm, at least I got the question answered for the next few posts, right?

BTW, is patronizing another member grounds for suspension/probation/ban?

This is another one of those mixing semantics with math/classical logic that's so much fun in middle school. Then you realize that words don't usually have literal mathematical meanings, you stop making dangling modifier jokes, and presumably stop being an idiot. See also:

Nothing is better than sex
Masturbation is better than nothing
therefore: masturbation is better than sex.

You can see the screw up there, so let's take a look at our women = evil problem. Even if we accept as a given that time is directly equal to money (which still makes no sense, since money and time are expressed in different units, but okay).

Women cannot be presumed to be "equal" to time and money, since we have not established any such equivalence. All we can accept is that women take some time and some money (rather than the totality of the woman being equal to the time and money). Similarly, money being the "root" of all evil is not an indication that it is the square root of all evil. Unless we've all age regressed back past youth, and straight into mental retardation, that's pretty obvious. True, if you simply replace them all with variables, you can find that given your definitions, you can show that the variables line up, but that's just sophistry.

Beyond that, take a look at the units, for a moment, which is where the first big mathematical hurdle is. Time is expressed (usually) in seconds, minutes, hours, days, weeks, months, years, decades, centuries, millenia, ect. Money is expressed in none of those terms, so there's no way to have money^2 (let's say 4.00$^2)= Money (2.00$) * Time (2.00s), or 4 $s= Time (4s^2) , but that's the only way this works. Hell, multiple times you have to come up with dollars squared, which doesn't make any kind of sense.

Your sarcasm is misplaced, and I would politely request that you apologize to your fellow Escapist. He is correct from a mathematical perspective, given that we must take units into account for objects with units. Now, you could say that it's the non-unit amount of time which is equal to the non-unit amount of money, but that's like saying 100km = 100cm, once you remove the units, which just makes you sound like a doofus.

You're right, humor is no longer accepted in the world, I was in the wrong. I should have known better, clearly finding any amount of joy in life is naive, that's why websites dedicated to gaming don't exist. That's why we don't see any comedy television, or television in general. That's why Stand-up is nonexistent. I was foolish for trying to do the impossible by possibly bringing a chuckle to others. I bow down to your superior dullness, sir, and hope the whole world will one day think exactly like you and not tolerate comedy.

You, sir, are a downer. Instead of laughing at something clearly intended to be a joke you bring in unwanted and completely unnecessary facts which have no right to be here. How about rediscovering the humorous side of life before thinking that everybody needs to know that a joke isn't logical. And if you immediately pictured a particular bone in your body when I said humorous, shame on you.

And doofus is not a word, and there is nothing wrong with saying 100 = 100. Sir.

 

[Seldon2639]

You're right, humor is no longer accepted in the world, I was in the wrong. I should have known better, clearly finding any amount of joy in life is naive, that's why websites dedicated to gaming don't exist. That's why we don't see any comedy television, or television in general. That's why Stand-up is nonexistent. I was foolish for trying to do the impossible by possibly bringing a chuckle to others. I bow down to your superior dullness, sir, and hope the whole world will one day think exactly like you and not tolerate comedy.

You, sir, are a downer. Instead of laughing at something clearly intended to be a joke you bring in unwanted and completely unnecessary facts which have no right to be here. How about rediscovering the humorous side of life before thinking that everybody needs to know that a joke isn't logical. And if you immediately pictured a particular bone in your body when I said humorous, shame on you.

And doofus is not a word, and there is nothing wrong with saying 100 = 100. Sir.

You seem to have mistaken sarcasm for wit, snideness for humor, and your opinion for something that matters. Your exact words were "I should just *facepalm* But instead I'm gonna be much meaner and patronize you". I may be a bit of a literalist, but it's difficult to find the humor in meanness or patronization. If you saw your post as an attempt at humor, I should simply stop, because I can't attack you. I can only really pity you (and pity anyone who maintains contact with you long enough to hear you tell a joke. Perhaps your brand of humor works in a stand up routine, so I encourage you to go find Dane Cook, and offer him your writing expertise. You'd be a good fit. Unfunny jokes for an unfunny comedian.

I take no issue with humor, but your humor wasn't particularly funny, and your condescension was misplaced. You, sir (to take your affectation and run with it) were the one trying to "prove" the validity of the joke (and did a particularly piss-poor job), in order to show another person to be incorrect and worthy of derision. That, sir, is not humor. That, sir, is simple jackassery. Your version of humor is "oh, look, you're wrong, let me show you how" and if you can find a single part of your post directed at EZMacilx which is funny, I'll eat my hat.

Don't try to sidestep your being incorrect in your derision of EZMacilx's post as a lack of a sense of humor on my part. He asked a mathematical question, you responded in a pretentious, arrogant, and barefacedly wrong manner, and I corrected you. It was your post which introduced a mathematical defense of the original joke. The fact that you were wrong doesn't make your reply humorous, it just makes it wrong.

By the way, it's the humerus, and while doofus isn't a proper english word, my original thought of calling you an inbred mongoloid house-frau seemed a little mean. Perhaps it was apropos.

Finding your sophomoric, condescending, and frankly rude humor to be decidedly unfunny isn't equivalent to not appreciating humor, it's equivalent to thinking you're a dick.

 

[Imat]

You're right, humor is no longer accepted in the world, I was in the wrong. I should have known better, clearly finding any amount of joy in life is naive, that's why websites dedicated to gaming don't exist. That's why we don't see any comedy television, or television in general. That's why Stand-up is nonexistent. I was foolish for trying to do the impossible by possibly bringing a chuckle to others. I bow down to your superior dullness, sir, and hope the whole world will one day think exactly like you and not tolerate comedy.

You, sir, are a downer. Instead of laughing at something clearly intended to be a joke you bring in unwanted and completely unnecessary facts which have no right to be here. How about rediscovering the humorous side of life before thinking that everybody needs to know that a joke isn't logical. And if you immediately pictured a particular bone in your body when I said humorous, shame on you.

And doofus is not a word, and there is nothing wrong with saying 100 = 100. Sir.

You seem to have mistaken sarcasm for wit, snideness for humor, and your opinion for something that matters. Your exact words were "I should just *facepalm* But instead I'm gonna be much meaner and patronize you". I may be a bit of a literalist, but it's difficult to find the humor in meanness or patronization. If you saw your post as an attempt at humor, I should simply stop, because I can't attack you. I can only really pity you (and pity anyone who maintains contact with you long enough to hear you tell a joke. Perhaps your brand of humor works in a stand up routine, so I encourage you to go find Dane Cook, and offer him your writing expertise. You'd be a good fit. Unfunny jokes for an unfunny comedian.

I take no issue with humor, but your humor wasn't particularly funny, and your condescension was misplaced. You, sir (to take your affectation and run with it) were the one trying to "prove" the validity of the joke (and did a particularly piss-poor job), in order to show another person to be incorrect and worthy of derision. That, sir, is not humor. That, sir, is simple jackassery. Your version of humor is "oh, look, you're wrong, let me show you how" and if you can find a single part of your post directed at EZMacilx which is funny, I'll eat my hat.

Don't try to sidestep your being incorrect in your derision of EZMacilx's post as a lack of a sense of humor on my part. He asked a mathematical question, you responded in a pretentious, arrogant, and barefacedly wrong manner, and I corrected you. It was your post which introduced a mathematical defense of the original joke. The fact that you were wrong doesn't make your reply humorous, it just makes it wrong.

By the way, it's the humerus, and while doofus isn't a proper english word, my original thought of calling you an inbred mongoloid house-frau seemed a little mean. Perhaps it was apropos.

Finding your sophomoric, condescending, and frankly rude humor to be decidedly unfunny isn't equivalent to not appreciating humor, it's equivalent to thinking you're a dick.

Ah, but you are incorrect once again, sir. Unfortunately I was not referring to the already admittedly mean post but instead to the post which you criticized, the joke in question. Patronizing someone is not a joke, though it can be fun. No, I refer to the system of equations which was so blatantly a joke. And while you may not understand that taking life as seriously as you yourself do is something to be pitied (See what I did there?), I fully understand that my system of equations was intended as a joke, not to be taken seriously, and is, in fact, funny. I would reiterate the main points, but you would probably take that as patronization of yourself and would attack yet again (But not doing so could result in the same...result...Quite the conundrum).

BTW, personal insults don't really help your case. Whilst I insulted the original question's poster's intelligence, you have insulted my very character based on 2 or 3 posts. And that, good sir, is not appreciated. To the original question's poster: I regret posting anything which may have felt mean or insulting, and as you can see I did in fact answer your question, albeit in a mocking tone. I meant no personal offense, seeing as how I know nothing about you, I was just in a less than satisfactory mood and decided to play around with words for awhile. You may never read this, but if you do, know that I truly am sorry if you took any offense at what was meant to be a cathartic response.

Now, seeing as how I've explained my bit as much as needed, I'm not sure this discussion needs to continue. While this is an off-topic thread, we've gone so far off-topic as to possibly incur wrath of the mod variety. In this case, a double negative is not a positive...Nor is it in very many cases at all, actually...You may continue the debate, good sir, but I believe I need not say anything further on a pointless matter.

 

[Flap Jack452]

You seem to have mistaken sarcasm for wit, snideness for humor, and your opinion for something that matters. Your exact words were "I should just *facepalm* But instead I'm gonna be much meaner and patronize you". I may be a bit of a literalist, but it's difficult to find the humor in meanness or patronization. If you saw your post as an attempt at humor, I should simply stop, because I can't attack you. I can only really pity you (and pity anyone who maintains contact with you long enough to hear you tell a joke. Perhaps your brand of humor works in a stand up routine, so I encourage you to go find Dane Cook, and offer him your writing expertise. You'd be a good fit. Unfunny jokes for an unfunny comedian.

I take no issue with humor, but your humor wasn't particularly funny, and your condescension was misplaced. You, sir (to take your affectation and run with it) were the one trying to "prove" the validity of the joke (and did a particularly piss-poor job), in order to show another person to be incorrect and worthy of derision. That, sir, is not humor. That, sir, is simple jackassery. Your version of humor is "oh, look, you're wrong, let me show you how" and if you can find a single part of your post directed at EZMacilx which is funny, I'll eat my hat.

Don't try to sidestep your being incorrect in your derision of EZMacilx's post as a lack of a sense of humor on my part. He asked a mathematical question, you responded in a pretentious, arrogant, and barefacedly wrong manner, and I corrected you. It was your post which introduced a mathematical defense of the original joke. The fact that you were wrong doesn't make your reply humorous, it just makes it wrong.

By the way, it's the humerus, and while doofus isn't a proper english word, my original thought of calling you an inbred mongoloid house-frau seemed a little mean. Perhaps it was apropos.

Finding your sophomoric, condescending, and frankly rude humor to be decidedly unfunny isn't equivalent to not appreciating humor, it's equivalent to thinking you're a dick.

Damn... I had to look up every third word in that.

 

[MagnetoHydroDynamics]

Lets assume the null entity: Ø = 1/0
thus Ø * 0 = 1.

a = b
a[sup]2[/sup] = a*b
a[sup]2[/sup]-b[sup]2[/sup] = a*b - b[sup]2[/sup]
(a-b)*(a+b) = b*(a-b)
aaØ = bØ

Still doesn't work. IE division by zero is strictly forbidden.