posted
So it recently came to my attention (while chatting, which I am doing RIGHT NOW, and if you weren't so lacking in awesomeness, you'd know that already) that we can do some awesome stuff with math.
Allow me to elaborate:
(a barrel full of monkey buttocks)^infinity = infinity
(Jon Boy)^infinity = infinity
Therefore:
(Jon Boy)^infinity = (a barrel full of monkey buttocks)^infinity
posted
Saxon, I thought you were an engineer. Didn't you take calculus? Apparently not, or else you would know that your last step there isn't possible.
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Since this has just been linked I want to point out that if (Jon Boy) and (a barrel full of monkey buttocks) represented numbers it actually would work.
Before someone accuses my of mooning, "oo" means infinity.
lim n-> oo (Jon Boy)^n = oo lim n-> oo (a barrel full of monkey buttocks)^n = oo
lim n-> oo (Jon Boy)^n = (a barrel full of monkey buttocks)^n
lim n-> oo ln ((Jon Boy)^n) = ln ((a barrel full of monkey buttocks)^n)
lim n-> oo n*ln (Jon Boy) = n*ln (a barrel full of monkey buttocks)
Thus, dividing by n give us: (Jon Boy) = (a barrel full of monkey buttocks)
posted
well, no, you can't manipulate infinities like that. Substitute 5 and 18 for jon boy and the barrel of monkeys and youll see why.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dude, I'm an English language major who hasn't done calculus in four and a half years, and I know that those equations are bunk. And you call yourself an engineer. For shame.
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Silly calcus tricks don't make me an engineer, they would make me a mathematician. Besides which, if I was trying to awe someone with my math skills I would either preform linear regression on a data set, use triple integrals to find a 3D cross-section of a four dimensional equation, or give up.
posted
This just seems like the right place for it:
There’s a physicist, a biologist, and a mathematician sitting at a café watching people walk by. The physicist notices two people walking into what appears to be an empty house, and then three people walking out about an hour later. The three discuss the event and try to determine what happened.
“We must’ve made a measurement error in our first count” the physicist proposes. The biologist says, “Or perhaps they reproduced while inside the house”. “Now,” muses the mathematician, “if someone walks into that house it will be empty”.
posted
And because we know that good people don't come to power be cause power corrupts, erso women rule the world. Personally I have no problems with this at all, it just means that, I really have to watch out what I say when I talk to women...for they might off me at any time...speaking of that...has anyone se...
Posts: 1986 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tullaan, that particular 'proof' has been posted many times here, so don't be surprised if no one responds to it
--- I love simple math patterns... Here are some I've found for the first 9 integers (yes, I know that the issue here is really just addition of evens and odds, but it is still fun):
1) If you add the individual digits of the results of 1 x n, until the result reduces to a number between 1 and 9 (so 1 x 14 = 14; 1 + 4 = 5 OR 1 x 39 = 39; 3 + 9 = 12, 1 = 2 = 3), you will get the repeating series {1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9}
2) Same as above, for multiples of two: {2,4,6,8,1,3,5,7,9,...}
posted
As an added feature, for integers > 9, simply add and reduce all it's digits until it equals some number between 1 and 9 (so 14 corresponds to 5), and that single digit's series is what the multiples of the original number will follow.
posted
Tullaan, the only problem with that equation is this:
if girls=time x money, that would mean the more time you spend with them, the less money it costs and honey - that just ain't true.
Posts: 8504 | Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged |