Read the thread, you'll see a very basic proof why 0.999.. = 1 entirely produced by none other then me 🙂 I even posted it twice, because someone replied to the thread without reading it.
As for sqrt(1/4) = 1/2 or -1/2...this is not true.
sqrt(1/4) = 1/2
sqrt is a function that one takes on values in [0, ->😉
Per definition the absolute value of a, written as |a|, is equal to sqrt(a^2).
'The square root of the sum of the squares' is a sentence you'll hear alot when discussing Euclidian distance in space. Distance is not negative.
Originally posted by TheMaster37As for sqrt(1/4) = 1/2 or -1/2...this is not true.
Read the thread, you'll see a very basic proof why 0.999.. = 1 entirely produced by none other then me 🙂 I even posted it twice, because someone replied to the thread without reading it.
As for sqrt(1/4) = 1/2 or -1/2...this is not true.
sqrt(1/4) = 1/2
sqrt is a function that one takes on values in [0, ->😉
Per definition the absolute valu ...[text shortened]... entence you'll hear alot when discussing Euclidian distance in space. Distance is not negative.
sqrt(1/4) = 1/2
sqrt is a function that one takes on values in [0, ->😉
Dammit! Caught by the mathematics police. And to think I would have gotten away with it if it weren't for you nosey kids.
Anyway, right right. I don't know what I was thinking.
P1: I sincerely hope all of you JUNIOR-Laplace, Babbage,
Poincare, Gauss, Galois, and Turing WANNABEES know that
XanthosNZ is pulling your leg with the "4 + 3 = 8 = 4 + 4"
PROOF. The fallacy he is imparting to you is well known, and
is introduced by the SQUARING of any equation. The best known
example is SHOWING [not proving] that "1 = 2", and is given in
most Algebra Two Primers.
P2: TheMaster37 should have realized that XanthosNZ was pulling
his leg by the comment: "Proof above shows 3+4=7, nothing more,
nothing less." Mathematical proofs "show" absolutely NOTHING at
all...a mathematical proof [through rigorous rules of protocol] does
more than SHOW [or just merely demonstrate]; it SUBSTANTIATES
the initial supposition.
P3: TheMaster37 is taking the "3/4" JOKE much too seriously by
giving the SQUARE Fallacy "Proof" of "-a = a"; and, this is a TRUE
statement by the way!!!!!!! Computers run into this conundrum all of
the time; the determination of this PARADOX is solved by taking the
of ABSOLUTE VALUE of each side. If you think this sounds rather dumb, then I agree with you. Tell that to a computer that tries to
resolve an equation that has "-0 = 0" as its solution. This is AKIN to knowing the difference in PHYSICS between SPEED and VELOCITY [which most mortals use interchangeably all the time]. I am quite
sure that most of the readers here know the difference, and it is quite
simple. The PROBLEM [in physics] comes about trying to put
a quantity on the Direction Vector. Where I might be traveling the
same SPEED as TheMaster37, say 100 mph, I am going around a
race track and TheMaster37 is on the interstate between New York
and San Francisco. My Direction Vector/DV is constantly changing
through 360-degrees, whereas TheMaster37 DV is tending North/South
of 250-degrees by very little.
P4: I hope TheMaster37 shows the same amount of LOGIC and
fortitude [as evidenced by his 1500+ rating], when and if I am ever
his opponent in RHP?!
ancr
ancrancr@yahoo.com
Dr Steven-Leslie Buntin, DD
PO Box 2066
Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27515-2066
United States of America
chesspresssyndicate@yahoo.com
Originally posted by ancrYOU should realise that EVERYONE posting here already knew their legs were being pulled, as EVERYONE knows 3+4=8 is a false statement.
P1: I sincerely hope all of you JUNIOR-Laplace, Babbage,
Poincare, Gauss, Galois, and Turing WANNABEES know that
XanthosNZ is pulling your leg with the "4 + 3 = 8 = 4 + 4"
PROOF. The fallacy he is imparting to you is well known, and
is introduced by the SQUARING of any equation. The best known
example is SHOWING [not proving] that "1 = 2", and ...[text shortened]...
Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27515-2066
United States of America
chesspresssyndicate@yahoo.com
Computers are dumb. The equation -a = a has only one solution. Your statement about taking absolute values makes as much sense as saying 3+4=8 is true; we switch the 8 for a 7, and there we are! If i want absolute values, then I'll type || around the numbers.
P 1-3; Just showing the kids real math here :p Most of the threads on the board live on people taking something too seriously. Proofs substantiate something, yes, 'show' is a weaker statement, and not false. 'Show' was all I needed.
P 4; I'm sure you mean another TheMaster37, as my rating never rose above 1460, and currently is about 1390. And of course i use logic in chess! Logic combined with streaks of absolute stupidity :p
Originally posted by AThousandYoungEconomics: 3 and 4 are both about 8, so so is 3+4.
If you guys want the answer, I will give it to you.
Here's a hint. With this thread and my "1.6=1.7=2" thread, you're all looking at the problem like mathematicians. Try looking at them from the perspective of economics, science, art, or philosophy.
Science: Two people independently saw 3 raindrops. In each case, they also saw two raindrops, which then each broke in half, giving four. For some reason one of the original 3 broke in half two, so they had a total of 8 raindrops. Thus 3+4 = 8.
Art: Paint a 3. Paint a three. Then paint a backward 3 touching it, to form an 8. Now do the same again, on top of the old one. Thus 4*3 = 8. Noting that 2*2 = 2+2, we conclude that xy=x+y for all real x and y, so in particular 3*4 = 3+4 = 8.
Philosophy: We'll prove it by contradiction from a few obvious premises. To start, assume that 3+4>8. Clearly, 3+4 = 7, so this is not the case. Then assume 3+4<8. But we assumed earlier that 3+4>8, so we have another contradiction. Thus by the law of trichotomy, 3+4=8.
Nicely done royalchicken. I laughed. Of course you mustn't forget astronomy where 50% errors are common. So:
(3*10^0)+(4*10^0) is within the same order of magnitude as 8*10^0 therefore they can be considered to be equal.
Note: Yes I am pulling your leg here. So is Royalchicken (as far as I know). 3 + 4 != 8 (to borrow a programming symbol, != meaning does not equal).
hmm.... seing as this is a multiverse, obvioulsy the following rules aplly:
1=10^1=100^1=1000^1 but only if %^100=<1 - this does NOT however mean that 2pi = the 5th^2 because that would leave out the
hypolisticalical of the 7th denominater! in order thus to avoid this, the universe has elongated it's 3^4sequence, thus stretching the pius calgaritory mass between point y and x on the catericol axis.
due to this 3^1=3^2=4
conclusion 3=4
so, 4+3(4)=8