Math motivational posters

[Fortuna]

Possibly the wrong forum, but hey.

You know those awesome posters? Things like this? (http://mybroadband.co.za/photos/data/551/medium/basic-math-motivational-poster.jpg) What other math posters of this sort can the playground find for me on the internet?

[golentan]

http://ui04.gamespot.com/1539/simplicitymotivationalposter_2.jpg
http://l.yimg.com/g/images/spaceball.gif
http://sciencetraveler.files.wordpress.com/2008/07/math.jpghttp://shhac.info/x/b/divide_by_zero.jpg

Edit: HAHA! Yes! Not ninja-ed on the divide by zero!

Edit Edit: Added a few more.

[Strawberries]

I've got one

http://www.motifake.com/image/demotivational-poster/0901/math-demotivational-poster-1231165554.jpg

And I laughed out loud at Golentan's second one. It's bad I got the joke, isn't it? :smallsmile:

[thubby]

I've got one

http://www.motifake.com/image/demotivational-poster/0901/math-demotivational-poster-1231165554.jpg

And I laughed out loud at Golentan's second one. It's bad I got the joke, isn't it? :smallsmile:

not on these forums it isn't :smallcool:

[WarBrute]

And I laughed out loud at Golentan's second one. It's bad I got the joke, isn't it? :smallsmile:

I too laughed at Golentan's second one. It's such an awful joke but I'm still laughing
:smalltongue:

[Serpentine]

I maded a one =3
http://fc09.deviantart.net/fs30/f/2008/107/d/f/It__s_true__by_Serpentine16.jpg

I found a /0 one I kinda liked, but I cannae find it now v.v

[Dogmantra]

I maded a one =3
http://fc09.deviantart.net/fs30/f/2008/107/d/f/It__s_true__by_Serpentine16.jpg

I found a /0 one I kinda liked, but I cannae find it now v.v

That's my favourite trick with Excel and I came up with it independently. I feel so special. :smallbiggrin:

[Renegade Paladin]

I maded a one =3
http://fc09.deviantart.net/fs30/f/2008/107/d/f/It__s_true__by_Serpentine16.jpg

I found a /0 one I kinda liked, but I cannae find it now v.v
That demands this:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v350/RenegadePaladin/Motivation/FractalWrong.jpg

:smalltongue:

[Eldan]

Huh. The excel one is done via rounding, then?

[Dogmantra]

Huh. The excel one is done via rounding, then?

Yeah, you put 2.4 and 2.4 into both the added bits, and then force all three cells to show no decimal places.

Technically 2 + 2 = 5 is correct to 0 decimal places.

[Pyrian]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v350/RenegadePaladin/Motivation/FractalWrong.jpgAre those... Are those fractal boobs? :smalleek:

[deuxhero]

This topic needs moar Sho.

[Strawberries]

That demands this:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v350/RenegadePaladin/Motivation/FractalWrong.jpg

:smalltongue:

That's awesome. Completely awesome. I'm going to send it to a few people I know... :smalltongue:

EDIT And I found another cute one (I'm a girl, but it's too funny not to post)

http://www.motifake.com/image/demotivational-poster/0907/girls-are-evil-girls-evil-math-proof-demotivational-poster-1246576184.jpg

[Thajocoth]

Are those... Are those fractal boobs? :smalleek:

Now that you mention it... No, I still don't see it. Even trying to see what you're seeing, I don't see it.

Spoilered because there's a curse word, and some people might care about that:
http://verydemotivational.files.wordpress.com/2010/02/129103921236703753.jpg

[WarBrute]

http://i147.photobucket.com/albums/r291/WarBrute/m.png


I'm particularly fond of this one.

[Strawberries]

I'm particularly fond of this one.

Isn't that more of a physics poster? HERESY!

I'm of course joking. It's quite funny.

[Ichneumon]

Isn't that more of a physics poster? HERESY!

I'm of course joking. It's quite funny.

Now, I know this is biology, but this one really makes me laugh every time I see it:

http://people.ibest.uidaho.edu/~etop/vgp/img/cartoon1.jpg

[The Vorpal Tribble]

My views on mathematics are well explained here:
http://i44.tinypic.com/a9r4gl.jpg

[Wolfer]

That's awesome. Completely awesome. I'm going to send it to a few people I know... :smalltongue:

EDIT And I found another cute one (I'm a girl, but it's too funny not to post)

http://www.motifake.com/image/demotivational-poster/0907/girls-are-evil-girls-evil-math-proof-demotivational-poster-1246576184.jpg

One this always bugged me about that girls are evil thing is that girls requre time and money. In my opinion that should then be girls = time + money, not girls = time * money. Then it'd be girls = 2sqr(evil) which would render the whole joke moot, but my point still stands...

[Serpentine]

Yeah, you put 2.4 and 2.4 into both the added bits, and then force all three cells to show no decimal places.

Technically 2 + 2 = 5 is correct to 0 decimal places.:smallmad:
That's it, you're out of the Magician's Guild!

Wolfer: I think that in probability, "and" is translated as "x"? But that wouldn't really work there, anyway.

Gary Larson's The Far Side should have some of these, shouldn't it?

edit: Eeyup.

http://www.math.harvard.edu/archive/21b_summer_05/images/circus.jpg

[Ranger Mattos]

Wow. These are hilarious. And not just because I'm a math nerd (I'm taking Algebra 2 in 8th grade. You don't think that's nerdy? :smalltongue:)

[Capt Spanner]

Based on a T-shirt:

http://diy.despair.com/output/poster87384687.jpg

[Serpentine]

Mattos: My housemate majored in mathematics, did honours in astrophysics, has a degree in maths teaching, is doing another postgraduate degree I think in pure mathematics or something similar, and has a job marking maths assignments.

You have a way to go before you impress me, buckeroo :smallwink:

[Blaine.Bush]

Wow. These are hilarious. And not just because I'm a math nerd (I'm taking Algebra 2 in 8th grade. You don't think that's nerdy? :smalltongue:)

I finished my dissertation at the age of negative three.

[A Rainy Knight]

This topic needs moar Sho.

Ahem. Attention, all tasteless tetrahedra: 3 is the point of the 1. 4 the 1-5-9 are 2. You factoring hectopascals! You zetta sons of digits! You brain-dead binomials! You ramen-raiding radians! You stupid zeroes! Any picture can show up on a computer screen. I show up in a spoiler.

http://pix.motivatedphotos.com/2009/5/10/633775459921344515-Math.jpg
...I think that should be enough.

[Zocelot]

I have seen every poster/comic/sketch in this thread before (or a slight variation). Yet, they're still funny, and in the case of Sho, awesome.

[Solaris]

Mattos: My housemate majored in mathematics, did honours in astrophysics, has a degree in maths teaching, is doing another postgraduate degree I think in pure mathematics or something similar, and has a job marking maths assignments.

You have a way to go before you impress me, buckeroo :smallwink:

By the eighth grade? Not that being three years ahead on the math is terribly impressive, especially in the American public school system, but saying what you did is kind of like me making fun of basic trainees my civilian neighbor making fun of basic trainees for not having done much of anything.
Just sayin'.

I remember seeing one somewhere that made me laugh, but I don't remember what it was. I's still looking for it.

[Player_Zero]

Can we make horrible maths jokes everyone will've heard before too?

Okay then.

Two mathematicians are studying a convergent series.
The first one says: "Do you realize that the series converges even when all the terms are made positive?"
The second one asks: "Are you sure?"
"Absolutely!"

An investment firm is hiring mathematicians. After the first round of interviews, three hopeful recent graduates - a pure mathematician, an applied mathematician, and a graduate in mathematical finance - are asked what starting salary they are expecting.
The pure mathematician: "Would $30,000 be too much?"
The applied mathematician: "I think $60,000 would be OK."
The math finance person: "What about $300,000?"
The personnel officer is flabberghasted: "Do you know that we have a graduate in pure mathematics who is willing to do the same work for a tenth of what you are demanding!?"
"Well, I thought of $135,000 for me, $135,000 for you - and $30,000 for the pure mathematician who will do the work."

Q: What is sour, yellow, and equivalent to the axiom of choice...
A: Zorn's lemon.

Q: What is purple and commutative?
A: An abelian grape.

Q: What is normed, complete, and yellow?
A: A Bananach space.

[Mando Knight]

EDIT And I found another cute one (I'm a girl, but it's too funny not to post)

http://www.motifake.com/image/demotivational-poster/0907/girls-are-evil-girls-evil-math-proof-demotivational-poster-1246576184.jpg

There's a problem with one of the givens:

It's love(money)=sqrt(evil), not money=sqrt(evil).

If you're going to quote the Bible out of context for amusing observations, quote it right, dammit! :smalltongue:

[Serpentine]

By the eighth grade? Not that being three years ahead on the math is terribly impressive, especially in the American public school system, but saying what you did is kind of like me making fun of basic trainees my civilian neighbor making fun of basic trainees for not having done much of anything.
Just sayin'.That would be why I said he "has a way to go to", not "he doesn't" impress me.

[The Extinguisher]

There's a problem with one of the givens:

It's love(money)=sqrt(evil), not money=sqrt(evil).

If you're going to quote the Bible out of context for amusing observations, quote it right, dammit! :smalltongue:

So money = arclove(sqrt(evil))?


must. graph. arclove(x).

[Dogmantra]

...I think that should be enough.

One Sho is never enough.

[Mando Knight]

So money = arclove(sqrt(evil))?
Likewise, (love(money))²=evil.

must. graph. arclove(x).
Good luck with that. The J-man never published the analytical solution to the original function. Plotting the inverse is nigh-impossible. Get either one, and philosophers everywhere will want your head for quantifying love. :smallwink::smalltongue:

[Amiel]

http://fc08.deviantart.net/fs27/i/2008/163/5/e/Your_Brain_on_Fractals_by_D8v1d.jpg

Yo dawg, I heard you like fractals, so we put a fractal in your fractal so you can fractal while you fractal

[golentan]

Hey, you know what the integral of 1/Cabin is? A wooden houseboat. Log Cabin + C

[Amiel]

Bears^n repeating remainder?

[golentan]

Pssst... The answer's in whitetext.

[Yora]

Question: What's an anagram of Banach–Tarski?
Answer: Banach–Tarski Banach–Tarski


Got this one from my statistics professor:
The mathematician husband comes home to his mathematician wife and says "I love you". She get's angry and hits him.
What he sould really have said is:
I love you, and only you.

[llamamushroom]

This is one my maths teacher sent my class recently.

An infinite number of mathematicians walk into a bar. The first goes up to the bartender and says, "I'll have a pint of lager, please." Each next one says, "and I'll have half of what he's having." The bartender says, "You're all idiots," and pulls two pints.

Naturally, she then asked us to show why. Stupid homework.

[Yora]

I discovered that myself when I was doing excel charts to make approximations how many NPCs of a given level or higher can be found in an area with a population of X.
(To determine how likely it is for the PCs to find someone who's able to cast a specific spell for them. :smallbiggrin:)


You can divide 1 into several parts like
1/2 + 1/4 + 1/4
or
1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + 1/8
or
1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + 1/16 + 1/16
or to make it simple (in math terms)
1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + 1/16 + ... + 1/(2^n) + 1/(2^n)
As you see, at the end of the line, there's always one number that is equal to the second last number. You can divide it by 2 as well, but then you end up with a new last number that is equal to the new second last number.
As n becomes infinite, 1/(2^n) becomes infinitely small. So the error becomes infinitely small as well. In the example, the first man orders 1 glass, so you add 1 to the whole line and end up with 1,99999-

[Eldan]

One this always bugged me about that girls are evil thing is that girls requre time and money. In my opinion that should then be girls = time + money, not girls = time * money. Then it'd be girls = 2sqr(evil) which would render the whole joke moot, but my point still stands...

Additionally, money is the root of all evil, i.e. Sum(evil) for i=-infinity to + infinity. Not just one unit if evil.

[llamamushroom]

Additionally, money is the root of all evil, i.e. Sum(evil) for i=-infinity to + infinity. Not just one unit if evil.

Ok, you are now officially reading too much into it. Stop now, before you cross the event horizon! :smalltongue:

[Yora]

Think of the catgirls, this might potentially endanger them.

[The Extinguisher]

Additionally, money is the root of all evil, i.e. Sum(evil) for i=-infinity to + infinity. Not just one unit if evil.

http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e92/FlameMasterAxel/math-3.png

Things kinda fall apart after that.

[SensFan]

This is one my maths teacher sent my class recently.

An infinite number of mathematicians walk into a bar. The first goes up to the bartender and says, "I'll have a pint of lager, please." Each next one says, "and I'll have half of what he's having." The bartender says, "You're all idiots," and pulls two pints.

Naturally, she then asked us to show why. Stupid homework.
The proof isn't too complex.

[Mando Knight]

Additionally, money is the root of all evil, i.e. Sum(evil) for i=-infinity to + infinity. Not just one unit if evil.

Forgot about the sum.

No, wait, it's all evil. Take the integral of evil over the real number set.

[Eldan]

Ah, but is evil, as an abstract concept, real? :smalltongue:

[Hazkali]

Ah, but is evil, as an abstract concept, real? :smalltongue:

Quantum mechanics- all observables must be real quantities. So, yes.


:smalltongue:

[golentan]

Ah, but is evil, as an abstract concept, real? :smalltongue:

The root of evil is money. Money is real, even if abstract, so its square can't be imaginary.

[Strawberries]

http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e92/FlameMasterAxel/math-3.png

Things kinda fall apart after that.


Oh Gods, what have I done?

[Pyrian]

"Arc" applies to trigonometric functions. The inverse of love is widely supposed to be hate (and sometimes posited to be indifference). Don't forget to hate the sin but love the sinner - that might help you solve the equation.

[Dogmantra]

Don't forget to hate the sin but love the sinner - that might help you solve the equation.

I suspect that you'll love the sinner doubly so if they have a nice tan. It's cos that's society, I suppose.

[Mando Knight]

The root of evil is money. Money is real, even if abstract, so its square can't be imaginary.

No, the love of money is the root of all evil. "Love" (the context implies obsession more than romantic attraction) is as much an abstraction, but still observable.

[Thajocoth]

If you're going to overanalyze it, at least toss in the fact that it's not a square root, it's just a root. You don't currently know the base of the root. Could be e for all you know.

[Sholos]

Hey, you know what the integral of 1/Cabin is? A wooden houseboat. Log Cabin + C


Bears^n repeating remainder?

Ouch. Just ... ouch.

I saw a shirt around campus that said:
"Last night I used u for ∫℮^x dx. I knew it was wrong."

[WarBrute]

Ouch. Just ... ouch.

I saw a shirt around campus that said:
"Last night I used u for ∫℮^x. I knew it was wrong."

That is wrong it should be ∫℮^xdx which simply equals e^x + c. No u substitution required.:smalltongue:

[Sholos]

That is wrong it should be ∫℮^xdx which simply equals e^x + c. No u substitution required.:smalltongue:

You're right, it should have the 'dx' on there, and it did. I forgot it. The joke, of course, you have explained very well.

[thorgrim29]

just start the evil equation with woman=time*money and it works....

[Eldan]

Well, yes. But women require time and money, not some strange money-time hybrid.

[The Glyphstone]

Well, you have to keep buying stuff for them, so don't women then require money over time?

That solves itself pretty quickly..

Women = Money/Time

Time = Money

Women = Money/Money

Women = 1.

....a mathematical proof that all females are part of a secret hive-mind!

[absolmorph]

If you're going to overanalyze it, at least toss in the fact that it's not a square root, it's just a root. You don't currently know the base of the root. Could be e for all you know.
Money is the root (http://i300.photobucket.com/albums/nn30/dezinho22/DSCN0603.jpg) of all evil?

[Pyrian]

...strange money-time hybrid.I think that's called a "date". :smallcool:

[Thanatos 51-50]

I think that's called a "date". :smallcool:

You know, ever since the original joke, this is the only continuation on the women/money/time/evil matrix I've understood.
Listen to this man, for he speaks truth!

[Astrella]

Well, yes. But women require time and money, not some strange money-time hybrid.

Well, if you go into combinatorics "money and time" would be money*time.

[Eldan]

Meh. Too many different kinds of maths with different terminology.

I didn't get more than half of the jokes in this thread. I also failed Analysis I+II at university. Previous analysis courses so did not prepare me for that. Stupid compulsory mathematics I haven't needed ever since. Why does ecology have that in the list of compulsory courses anyway.

[Astrella]

Ew, analysis. I'm glad that subject isn't/wasn't compulsory for me.

[Jokasti]

That is wrong it should be ∫℮^xdx which simply equals e^x + c. No u substitution required.:smalltongue:
I saw several that say "I'm so ∫e^xy"


It's cosine that's society, I suppose.

[Firestar27]

You can divide 1 into several parts like
1/2 + 1/4 + 1/4
or
1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + 1/8
or
1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + 1/16 + 1/16
or to make it simple (in math terms)
1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + 1/16 + ... + 1/(2^n) + 1/(2^n)
As you see, at the end of the line, there's always one number that is equal to the second last number. You can divide it by 2 as well, but then you end up with a new last number that is equal to the new second last number.
As n becomes infinite, 1/(2^n) becomes infinitely small. So the error becomes infinitely small as well. In the example, the first man orders 1 glass, so you add 1 to the whole line and end up with 1,99999-


MUCH easier method: :smalltongue:
1+1/2+1/4+1/8+... = Sum((1/2)^n) from n=0 to infinity.
This is a geometric series with r=1/2.
Sum of an infinite geometric series = (t_1)/(1-r) = 1/(1-1/2) = 1/(1/2) = 2.
Simple. :smalltongue:
(In all fairness, it took me a while to see that, and I had to see you spell out the terms of the series. ^_^;

[The Extinguisher]

"Arc" applies to trigonometric functions. The inverse of love is widely supposed to be hate (and sometimes posited to be indifference). Don't forget to hate the sin but love the sinner - that might help you solve the equation.

Who says love isn't a trigonometric function? It does keep going round and round.

Alright, going with what we have.

girls = time + money
time = money
girls = 2*money
love(money) = sqrt(∫ from -infinity to infinity(evil))
Evil >= 0, because negative evil is good.
love(money) = sqrt(2*∫ from zero to infinity(evil))
let (2*∫ from zero to infinity(evil)) = sin, because all evil is a sin,
love(money) = sqrt(sin)
money = hate(sqrt(sin))
girls = 2*hate(sqrt(sin))
sqrt(sin) = 1/2 * love(girls)
sin = 1/4 * love^2(girls)

but to love something you have to let it go, so
love(girls) = letgo(girls)

sin = 1/4 * letgo^2(girls)
letgo(girls) = 2sqrt(sin)
letgo(girls = 2*love(money)
but you never really let go of girls, so letgo(girls) = girls
girls = 2*love(money)
girls = 2*sqrt(∫ from -infinity to infinity(evil))
sqrt(∫ from -infinity to infinity(evil)) = girls/2


From this you get a whole bunch of interesting conclusions.

First off, half a girl is the root of all evil.
half a girl is also the root of sin (the other half?)
since girls/2 = money, money is the root of all evil as well
love(money) = money, so if you love something hard enough you can have it.


And that's the lesson we learn from today. Math has proven that if you love something, you will get it.

This is not even touching on the fact that hate(sin) = love(sinner) or that hate(the game) != hate(the player). I don't even want to get into love changing with respect to time. Also, does love(math) = waste(time)

[Dogmantra]

Jokasti: If you're allowed to use the calcliator abbreviation in "sin" and "sinner" than you are darned well allowed to use "cos" instead. I don't see you correcting Pyrian!

[Cobra_Ikari]

Who says love isn't a trigonometric function? It does keep going round and round.

Alright, going with what we have.

girls = time + money
time = money
girls = 2*money
love(money) = sqrt(∫ from -infinity to infinity(evil))
Evil >= 0, because negative evil is good.
love(money) = sqrt(2*∫ from zero to infinity(evil))
let (2*∫ from zero to infinity(evil)) = sin, because all evil is a sin,
love(money) = sqrt(sin)
money = hate(sqrt(sin))
girls = 2*hate(sqrt(sin))
sqrt(sin) = 1/2 * love(girls)
sin = 1/4 * love^2(girls)

but to love something you have to let it go, so
love(girls) = letgo(girls)

sin = 1/4 * letgo^2(girls)
letgo(girls) = 2sqrt(sin)
letgo(girls = 2*love(money)
but you never really let go of girls, so letgo(girls) = girls
girls = 2*love(money)
girls = 2*sqrt(∫ from -infinity to infinity(evil))
sqrt(∫ from -infinity to infinity(evil)) = girls/2


From this you get a whole bunch of interesting conclusions.

First off, half a girl is the root of all evil.
half a girl is also the root of sin (the other half?)
since girls/2 = money, money is the root of all evil as well
love(money) = money, so if you love something hard enough you can have it.


And that's the lesson we learn from today. Math has proven that if you love something, you will get it.

This is not even touching on the fact that hate(sin) = love(sinner) or that hate(the game) != hate(the player). I don't even want to get into love changing with respect to time. Also, does love(math) = waste(time)

You know, it's only now that I realized that I can get twice as much money for a whole woman as I can for half of one. *blinks*

Some unfortunate implications arise.

[Sliver]

Is time the root of all evil as well?:smallconfused:

[Yora]

MUCH easier method: :smalltongue:
1+1/2+1/4+1/8+... = Sum((1/2)^n) from n=0 to infinity.
This is a geometric series with r=1/2.
Sum of an infinite geometric series = (t_1)/(1-r) = 1/(1-1/2) = 1/(1/2) = 2.
Simple. :smalltongue:
(In all fairness, it took me a while to see that, and I had to see you spell out the terms of the series. ^_^;
Shorter. But not simpler. :smallbiggrin:

[averagejoe]

Evil >= 0, because negative evil is good.

That's a bit of a non sequitur. For example, I could say -2 >= 0 because -(-2) is 2. Evil is inherently negative. That negative evil is good only means that good is a positive thing.

[Anonymoose]

MUCH easier method: :smalltongue:
1+1/2+1/4+1/8+... = Sum((1/2)^n) from n=0 to infinity.
This is a geometric series with r=1/2.
Sum of an infinite geometric series = (t_1)/(1-r) = 1/(1-1/2) = 1/(1/2) = 2.
Simple. :smalltongue:
(In all fairness, it took me a while to see that, and I had to see you spell out the terms of the series. ^_^;

Actually, an even simpler method is:

Let n=1+1/2+1/4+1/8+....
2n=2+1+1/2+1/4+1/8+...
2n-n=(2+1+1/2+1/4+1/8+...)-(1+1/2+1/4+1/8+...)
n=2

[horngeek]

An interesting fact: 0.999...=1.

Here's the proof:

Let 0.999...= x

Therefore, 10x = 9.999...

and 9x = 10x - x = 9.999... - 0.999... = 9

Therefore, if 9x = 9, then x = 1.

THEREFORE... x = 1= 0.999...

Q.E.D.

[Sliver]

Actually, an even simpler method is:

Let n=1+1/2+1/4+1/8+....
2n=2+1+1/2+1/4+1/8+...
2n-n=(2+1+1/2+1/4+1/8+...)-(1+1/2+1/4+1/8+...)
n=2

Won't the last and most insignificant number stay there?

[Astrella]

There isn't one, it's an infinite row.

[Delta]

Won't the last and most insignificant number stay there?

There is no last number. That's why you call it an infinite series, you know ;)

Beware the belgian math ninjas!

[Hazkali]

Won't the last and most insignificant number stay there?

No, because they're infinite sums- in effect, they have no 'last' number.

[Amiel]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/e/7/6/e769b8739b1298d8a840c8a7f59c0dfd.png


A dozen, a gross, and a score
Plus three times the square root of four
Divided by seven
Plus five times eleven
Is nine squared and not a bit more.

[whitelaughter]

One this always bugged me about that girls are evil thing is that girls requre time and money. In my opinion that should then be girls = time + money, not girls = time * money.

No, it's multiplied; you don't spend a flat amount of money! $X per date means that you need to multiply the amount you fork out per date by the number of dates, etc.

And Mondo Knight is correct, it should be the love of girls, rather than girls themselves.

[Eldan]

Couldn't we just, with a little more work, derive that the function love() is always evil?

[Flickerdart]

No, it's multiplied; you don't spend a flat amount of money! $X per date means that you need to multiply the amount you fork out per date by the number of dates, etc.

And Mondo Knight is correct, it should be the love of girls, rather than girls themselves.
Additionally, nearly every self-contained date requires X money per Y units of time, not just a sum forked over at the start combined with whatever time you're willing to spend. Every extension will bring more costs.

[Pheehelm]

An interesting fact: 0.999...=1.

Here's the proof:

Let 0.999...= x

Therefore, 10x = 9.999...

and 9x = 10x - x = 9.999... - 0.999... = 9

Therefore, if 9x = 9, then x = 1.

THEREFORE... x = 1= 0.999...

Q.E.D.I prefer this proof:Let n = 0.999...

(1/3) = 0.333...

(1/3) x 3 = 1

0.333... x 3 = .999...

Therefore, n = 1 = .999...
Or more succinctly:.999... / 3 = .333...

1 / 3 = .333...

Therefore, .999... = 1.

[Zanaril]

Therefore, 10x = 9.999...


...Except wouldn't 10 x 0.9r have one less 9 after the decimal place?

Or is one less than infinity still infinity? :smallconfused:

[Fostire]

...Except wouldn't 10 x 0.9r have one less 9 after the decimal place?

Or is one less than infinity still infinity? :smallconfused:

The latter, I think.

[Pheehelm]

That is how infinity works, yes.

[Dogmantra]

That is how infinity works, yes.

Even weirder is despite the fact that infinity-1 = infinity, infinity+(infinity-1) =/= 2infinity

Yeah.
They're different values of infinity.

[Yora]

But to me this seems mostly like a convention and not like an actual mathematical neccessity.
Because 9 x 0,99999... is not 9.

I don't know about other languages, but in German you don't actually say something "becomes infinite", but "approaches infinity".
0,999... is different from 1 by an infinitely small ammount. But there's still a difference.


Mathematicians are like Frenchmen: whatever you say to them, they translate it into their own language, and forthwith it means something entirely different. -- Goethe

[The Extinguisher]

No. 0.999... IS 1

It's an infinite series of the form

9(1/10) + 9(1/10^2) + 9(1/10^3) + ...
http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/6/f/a/6fa510b44742046a167b4b8515162825.png


There is no real number between 0.999... and 1. There can't be. It would be infinitely small. And because there are no real numbers between the two, they must be the same real number.

[Yora]

I always liked this one:
http://www.sciencecartoonsplus.com/gallery/math/math07.gif

[GrassyGnoll]

My high school math team had a habit of throwing up ϕ hand symbols and calling out "phi unit" whenever mildly triumphant.

My contribution to memorizing convergent functions; spoilered for misogyny
Top heavy functions do not exist. Neither do top-heavy girls in math class.

[Pyrian]

Even weirder is despite the fact that infinity-1 = infinity, infinity+(infinity-1) =/= 2infinity

Yeah.
They're different values of infinity.I don't think you actually get different infinities that way. Multiplying an infinite number by a finite natural constant isn't any more effective than adding (or substracting) a finite natural constant.

[ForzaFiori]

My contribution to memorizing convergent functions; spoilered for misogyny
Top heavy functions do not exist. Neither do top-heavy girls in math class.

This is actually wrong.

There's one in my AP calc class. :smallbiggrin:

[Firestar27]

girls = 2*hate(sqrt(sin))
sqrt(sin) = 1/2 * love(girls)
sin = 1/4 * love^2(girls)

girls = 2*hate(sqrt(sin))
1/2 * girls = hate(sqrt(sin))
love(1/2 * girls) = sqrt(sin)
sin = love^2(1/2 * girls)
Fixed it for you. :smalltongue:


but to love something you have to let it go, so
love(girls) = letgo(girls)
<snip>
but you never really let go of girls, so letgo(girls) = girls

That means that love(girls) = girls. But we all know that loving a girl does not mean that you get the girl. Or does it mean that loving a girl is the same as being a girl? :smallconfused:


love(money) = money, so if you love something hard enough you can have it.

No, that only proves that if you want money enough, then you can get it. (And that's even assuming your math from earlier works out, with my correction.). It does not apply for the entire domain of love. (Although it seems that it may also apply for girls, as shown above.)
Example:
f(x) = x^2
x_0 = 1
f(x_0) = 1^2 = 1
f(x_0) = x_0
However, f(x) =/= x for all x.
Q.E.D. :smalltongue:


Also, does love(math) = waste(time)

Blasphemy! Blasphemy, I say!

Edit:

I don't think you actually get different infinities that way. Multiplying an infinite number by a finite natural constant isn't any more effective than adding (or substracting) a finite natural constant.
Lim(2x/5x) as x --> infinity = 2/5.
Taking infinity and multiplying it by 2 does nothing. But having the idea of 2*infinity does exist; the 2 does remain; it only doesn't change the idea of infinity.

[Flickerdart]

And because there are no real numbers between the two, they must be the same real number.
I don't understand this. Surely having no numbers between the two means that they are simply numbers next to one another, not that they are the same. Otherwise, 0.999....99 is the same as 0.999....98 which is the same as 0.999....97, which means that all numbers are identical to infinity decimal places and math stops working.

[ForzaFiori]

I don't understand this. Surely having no numbers between the two means that they are simply numbers next to one another, not that they are the same. Otherwise, 0.999....99 is the same as 0.999....98 which is the same as 0.999....97, which means that all numbers are identical to infinity decimal places and math stops working.

This isn't true, because by having .999....99, .999...98, etc, your ending the number, therefor it is no longer infinite. the number .999... continues to have nines forever. As such, there can be no number between it and 1, and therefor they are the same. by having .999...98, you end the number, so you have a HUGE string of nines, but then an 8 and it ends. therefor, you can add another 9, make the number 1 digit longer, and have a number between .999...98 and .999...99.

[Tirian]

I don't understand this. Surely having no numbers between the two means that they are simply numbers next to one another, not that they are the same. Otherwise, 0.999....99 is the same as 0.999....98 which is the same as 0.999....97, which means that all numbers are identical to infinity decimal places and math stops working.

That's an understandable concern, but when you get down to actually defining the real numbers (which you might do as early as pre-calc if you're really into it), one of the rules is that if you have two expressions for a real number and their difference is smaller than any strictly positive real number, then the two expressions are of the same number. It's a little bit like understanding that 1/2 and 2/4 are two different ways of expressing the same rational number.

[Pyrian]

Lim(2x/5x) as x --> infinity = 2/5.That says absolutely nothing about a finite natural constant applied to an infinite value (or divergent function, if you prefer).


Taking infinity and multiplying it by 2 does nothing.Quit while you're ahead. :smallwink:


But having the idea of 2*infinity does exist; the 2 does remain; it only doesn't change the idea of infinity.It doesn't remain in any meaningful fashion. You can distinguish between "countable" infinities (e.g. the set of natural numbers) and "smooth" infinities (e.g. the set of real numbers), but any "countable" infinite set corresponds one-to-one to any other "countable" infinite set. That means you cannot distinguish "countable" infinities based on quantity at all.

EDIT:
Surely having no numbers between the two means that they are simply numbers next to one another, not that they are the same.The real number set literally cannot contain numbers "next" to each other, because any two numbers can be averaged, producing a number halfway between them (or, indeed, an infinite number of numbers in between them).

Therefore, if 0.999... < 1, then there exists a number halfway between them, which must necessarily contain a digit which is not nine, which must in turn be less than 0.999... . Therefore, 0.999... < 1 is proven false.

[averagejoe]

But to me this seems mostly like a convention and not like an actual mathematical neccessity.
Because 9 x 0,99999... is not 9.

I don't know about other languages, but in German you don't actually say something "becomes infinite", but "approaches infinity".
0,999... is different from 1 by an infinitely small ammount. But there's still a difference.

I'm not sure what you mean by, "A convention." Where in life have you experienced infinity? Show me a .9r in real life that differs from a 1 in real life.

In mathematics the two numbers are in every way and by every test indistinguishable, so they must be equal. The reason people tend to disagree is because infinity does some really counter intuitive things, and infinity is completely outside the human experience.

In English it's also correct to say, "Approaches infinity." "Becomes infinite," doesn't really make sense, broadly speaking.


I don't think you actually get different infinities that way. Multiplying an infinite number by a finite natural constant isn't any more effective than adding (or substracting) a finite natural constant.

This is correct. Infinity isn't a discrete value, and you usually have to do pretty esoteric things to make it different. For example, odd numbers, perfect squares, and natural numbers (1, 2, 3, etc.) are all the same order of infinity. This is despite the fact that perfect squares are pretty rare: 1, 4, 9, 16, 25, 36, 49, 64, 81, and 100 are the only perfect squares between 1 and 100. There are ten times as many natural numbers between 1 and 100 as there are perfect squares, and the squares only get rarer as you go higher up. (Notice that the distance between squares goes up for each successive square.) Even so, there are the same amount of perfect squares as there are natural numbers. (Quick and dirty not-proof: for each natural number you can assign a perfect square. One can make a list like the one seen here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Square_number) and never stop, pairing up each natural number with a perfect square.)

This is kind of a neat thing, and one of the more graspable examples of how counter intuitive infinity can be. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hilbert%27s_paradox_of_the_Grand_Hotel#cite_note-0)


I don't understand this. Surely having no numbers between the two means that they are simply numbers next to one another, not that they are the same. Otherwise, 0.999....99 is the same as 0.999....98 which is the same as 0.999....97, which means that all numbers are identical to infinity decimal places and math stops working.

But 0.999...99 and 0.999...98 do have numbers between them; 0.999...985, for example. There actually exists a mathematical proof that, for every two real numbers, there exists an infinite number of both rational and irrational numbers between them.

Now this idea is somewhat imprecise. For example, if you're only looking at the natural numbers, there are no numbers between 1 and 2, and they're obviously not equal. However, for any two real numbers, if there exist no real numbers between them, then they must be equal.

[Deathslayer7]

let's stop with the .999=1 argument already. I just got rid of that quote in my spoiler. :smalltongue:

I dont want to have to put it back up again.

[Eldan]

love(1/2 * girls) = sqrt(sin)

Or in other word: loving half a girl is the root of sin.

[The Extinguisher]

This is correct. Infinity isn't a discrete value, and you usually have to do pretty esoteric things to make it different. For example, odd numbers, perfect squares, and natural numbers (1, 2, 3, etc.) are all the same order of infinity. This is despite the fact that perfect squares are pretty rare: 1, 4, 9, 16, 25, 36, 49, 64, 81, and 100 are the only perfect squares between 1 and 100. There are ten times as many natural numbers between 1 and 100 as there are perfect squares, and the squares only get rarer as you go higher up. (Notice that the distance between squares goes up for each successive square.) Even so, there are the same amount of perfect squares as there are natural numbers. (Quick and dirty not-proof: for each natural number you can assign a perfect square. One can make a list like the one seen here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Square_number) and never stop, pairing up each natural number with a perfect square.)

This is kind of a neat thing, and one of the more graspable examples of how counter intuitive infinity can be. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hilbert%27s_paradox_of_the_Grand_Hotel#cite_note-0)

Honestly, I prefer how you can assign a natural number to all integers and even all rational numbers.

[averagejoe]

Honestly, I prefer how you can assign a natural number to all integers and even all rational numbers.

Yes, but that's somewhat less intuitive for those who haven't spent years studying this sort of thing. :smallwink:

[Dogmantra]

I don't think you actually get different infinities that way. Multiplying an infinite number by a finite natural constant isn't any more effective than adding (or substracting) a finite natural constant.

You get different values of infinity but they're still infinity so who really cares?

YAY MATHS IT ALWAYS MAKES SENSE.

[averagejoe]

You get different values of infinity but they're still infinity so who really cares?

YAY MATHS IT ALWAYS MAKES SENSE.

That's incorrect. There are no different values of infinity, and you can't get to different orders of infinity though finite arithmetic operations.

[Player_Zero]

That's incorrect. There are no different values of infinity, and you can't get to different orders of infinity though finite arithmetic operations.

Aleph null, aleph one.

[averagejoe]

Aleph null, aleph one.

How's that?

[Player_Zero]

They're different and they both describe an infinity.

One might say they are different values of infinity.

[Dr. Bath]

2^infinity is infiniter than infinity.

Dems maths.

[tyckspoon]

2^infinity is infiniter than infinity.

Dems maths.

I cannot disagree with Dr. Bath's avatar. MATHS!

[averagejoe]

They're different and they both describe an infinity.

One might say they are different values of infinity.

Ah, I thought you were taking issue with my, "finite arithmetic operations," statement. I meant value in the context of the statement, "2*infinity gives you a different value of infinity." I guess I could have been more precise, but word games are, in general, uninteresting to me in the context of mathematical discussion.

[Blue Ghost]

There are different values of infinity, but infinity multiplied by a finite number gives the same value of infinity. I believe that for two infinite sets to count as different values, you have to prove that one is larger than the other, by finding a way to correspond every member of the first set to a member of the second set, while still having some members of the second set left over, or something like that. The infinite set of all sets is larger than the infinite set of all numbers.

[Nomrom]

Holy shift! Look at the asymptote on that mother function!

[Pheehelm]

I would, but I never could tell my asymptote from a hole in the graph.

[lesser_minion]

I always quite liked the "Full = Empty" proof:

Half Full is the same as Half Empty:

Half * Full = Half * Empty

Cancel the halves to get Full = Empty.

[Alex112524]

Everyone, it's all quite simple, infinity is the inverse of zero :smallbiggrin:

[Egiam]

Back on topic:
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_4s5pmFL_ZlQ/SGfFG17ThjI/AAAAAAAAAr0/2glZO-_tvTk/s1600/MATH%2B-%2Bwhat%2Bnow%2Bbitches%2Bwww.motivationalposterso nline.blogspot.com%2Bdemotivational%2Bposters%2Bmo tivational%2Bposter%2Bfunny.jpg

[Pinnacle]

I always quite liked the "Full = Empty" proof:

Half Full is the same as Half Empty:

Half * Full = Half * Empty

Cancel the halves to get Full = Empty.

:smallconfused:

Wouldn't it be easier just to do like so:

1/2 Full = 1/2 Empty
2(Full/2) = 2(Empty/2)
Full = Empty

[Blue Ghost]

I fail to see the difference.

[Haruki-kun]

I fail to see the difference.

Said 0 when subtracted from 1.

[Pyrian]

Re: Pinnacle, that's not just an equivalent operation, that's the same operation. :smallconfused:

[Fostire]

:smallconfused:

Wouldn't it be easier just to do like so:

1/2 Full = 1/2 Empty
2(Full/2) = 2(Empty/2)
Full = Empty
If x is the total then half full would be = x/2
and half empty would be = x-x/2

so you would get
x/2=x-x/2
2(x/2)=2(x-x/2)
x=2x-x
x=x


Said 0 when subtracted from 1.
:smallbiggrin:

[Blue Ghost]

Said 0 when subtracted from 1.

I love you, Haruki. :smallbiggrin:

[Mando Knight]

:smallconfused:

Wouldn't it be easier just to do like so:

1/2 Full = 1/2 Empty
2(Full/2) = 2(Empty/2)
Full = Empty

It's the same proof.

[Private-Prinny]

Back on topic:
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_4s5pmFL_ZlQ/SGfFG17ThjI/AAAAAAAAAr0/2glZO-_tvTk/s1600/MATH%2B-%2Bwhat%2Bnow%2Bbitches%2Bwww.motivationalposterso nline.blogspot.com%2Bdemotivational%2Bposters%2Bmo tivational%2Bposter%2Bfunny.jpg


This post is funnier when you watch this. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bt1w4iRNWLA)

[Reinholdt]

Said 0 when subtracted from 1.
:biggrin:

Three statisticians went deer hunting one day. They traveled for a bit, until they finally spotted a deer grazing. The first statistician stepped up and took his shot, but it went ten feet too far to the left. The deer, being a backwater retarded deer, didn't run away. So the second statistician stepped up to shoot, but he missed by ten feet too far to the right. The third statistician jumped up and shouted "We got it!"

[Egiam]

This post is funnier when you watch this. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bt1w4iRNWLA)

LOL! That's hilarious!

[Nomrom]

LOL! That's hilarious!

It's even funnier when you read the comments of people who agree with Verizon and try and prove that costumer guy is wrong.

[Delta]

There are different values of infinity, but infinity multiplied by a finite number gives the same value of infinity.

Actually, you're not talking about value here, you're talking about "cardinality", which is a slightly different concept. There are different cardinalities of infinite sets, the "lowest" of which would simply be the cardinality of natural integers (also called "countable", for obvious reasons). You can actually prove that the cardinality of rational numbers (that means every number that can be expressed as a/b) is the same, so mathematically speaking, there aren't more rational numbers than there are integers, even if there's an infinite number of rationals between each integer (and actually an infinite number of rationals between any other two given rationals...). If you want to know more about the proof, look up Cantor's diagonal argument.

But if you look at real numbers, as opposed to rationals, then it's actually quite simple to prove that their cardinality is higher than that of integers (they are "uncountable"), so there are "more" real numbers than integers (or rationals, again, even while there's an infinite number of rationals between any two given real numbers), and by proving that the cardinality of a power set is always higher than that of the corresponding set, you can show that there's actually an infinite number of "infinities".

And yes, I really like thinking about stuff like this :)

[Amiel]

It's even funnier when you read the comments of people who agree with Verizon and try and prove that costumer guy is wrong.

Their math doesn't make any cents.

[The Extinguisher]

It's even funnier when you read the comments of people who agree with Verizon and try and prove that costumer guy is wrong.

Well, to be fair, their math was right. It's just the guy on the phone was being stupid and quoted 0.002 cents for the bill when it was $0.002

[Elystan]

This thread is amazing in so many ways


But if you look at real numbers, as opposed to rationals, then it's actually quite simple to prove that their cardinality is higher than that of integers (they are "uncountable"), so there are "more" real numbers than integers (or rationals, again, even while there's an infinite number of rationals between any two given real numbers), and by proving that the cardinality of a power set is always higher than that of the corresponding set, you can show that there's actually an infinite number of "infinities".

Even cooler is how there are an infinite number of rationals between every irrational, and an infinite number of irrationals between each rational. There being infinitely many times more irrationals than rationals (see the integration of the Dirichlet function). And there are very few known irrationals.

[Pinnacle]

Re: Pinnacle, that's not just an equivalent operation, that's the same operation. :smallconfused:

:smallconfused: So it is.

Yeah, I dunno what I was doing there.:smallsigh:

[Asta Kask]

Not a poster, but...
http://img716.imageshack.us/img716/6585/1269678011060.png

[SoD]

Or in other word: loving half a girl is the root of sin.

But is it a sin to root half a girl?

[The Extinguisher]

But is it a sin to root half a girl?

So in the end we've learned nothing?

Except that math involving girls and money is too complex. Does this mean girls are imaginary?

[WarBrute]

So in the end we've learned nothing?

Except that math involving girls and money is too complex. Does this mean girls are imaginary?

Gah! Don't say that less we have a discussion involving,

Girls= i

[Flickerdart]

Gah! Don't say that less we have a discussion involving,

Girls= i

If so, then grls=1.

[Mando Knight]

So in the end we've learned nothing?

Except that math involving girls and money is too complex. Does this mean girls are imaginary?

No, but money is. It, like a large number of "scales" and other things with numbers attached to them without physical meaning, are "concrete" abstractions invented by humanity to compare things.

It's arbitrary, inconstant, and can't be used for any kind of proof. What's the exact value of precisely one kilogram of gold in Euros? US Dollars? Yen? Now wait a few days and check again. It changes based on an arbitrary set of guesswork which in turn is based on quality, quantity of supply, and quantity of demand.

[The Extinguisher]

No, but money is. It, like a large number of "scales" and other things with numbers attached to them without physical meaning, are "concrete" abstractions invented by humanity to compare things.

It's arbitrary, inconstant, and can't be used for any kind of proof. What's the exact value of precisely one kilogram of gold in Euros? US Dollars? Yen? Now wait a few days and check again. It changes based on an arbitrary set of guesswork which in turn is based on quality, quantity of supply, and quantity of demand.

Well complex numbers need too things. A real and an imaginary component. I've held money in my hands, and I'm looking at it right now. It must be real.

That really only leaves one option.

[Tulio d Bard]

If x is the total then half full would be = x/2
and half empty would be = x-x/2

so you would get
x/2=x-x/2
2(x/2)=2(x-x/2)
x=2x-x
x=x


x-x/2 isn't half empty, it's full less half full. Half empty = (x-x)/2, which is 0.

x/2=0
x=0

Full = Empty


An interesting fact: 0.999...=1.

Here's the proof:

Let 0.999...= x

Therefore, 10x = 9.999...

and 9x = 10x - x = 9.999... - 0.999... = 9

Therefore, if 9x = 9, then x = 1.

THEREFORE... x = 1= 0.999...

Q.E.D.

0.999... = 1-(1/infinite)
0.999... = 1

It is right, isn't it?

[Nomrom]

Well complex numbers need too things. A real and an imaginary component. I've held money in my hands, and I'm looking at it right now. It must be real.

That really only leaves one option.

Somebody just made some interesting revelations about their life.

[Erloas]

x-x/2 isn't half empty, it's full less half full. Half empty = (x-x)/2, which is 0.

x/2=0
x=0

Full = Empty


If you are going that way then it should be 0+x/2 ie empty + half of full, because what you did is (full-full)/2 which isn't the same thing at all.