I don't get it?
Why would 1.27 be the answer?
can't say I understand it either OP, it's probably stupid though! yeah I'm not stupid
>>81507590
There are only a few squares on that chessboard as you can see
The votey doesn't really help either.
he said 2 pennies on the second square and so on, as in the first square has 1 penny and the rest get 2 and there are 64 squares. come on dude
because Hume was right and induction is impossible (two pennies for every place on the board except the first)
I'm no mathematician, but could it be that he was just adding another penny on each square rather than doubling? 1 on the first, then 2 on the second, then 3, then 4...
He thought that the price would double tile after tile but he only add one cent for tile.
I'll give the benefit of the doubt and assume that this is a smart joke, but it's completely lost on me. I don't have the slightest idea what he's going for here, other than dad is a complete dick.
>>81507658
that comes from a pattern repeating back and forth of 1 and 2 pennies in each square
>>81507651
They are simply not drawn. It's referenced to as a chessboard, then it's a chessboard. if what we see is what it is, then he should have only received ONE penny, as there is only one square that can be seen.
>>81507658
I'm assuming alternating 1 and 2 pennies for every space
Its a grammatical thing. He put a penny on the first square, then two pennies on the remaining 63 squares. The son assumed the father was talking about exponential growth, (i.e. 1,2,4,8,16, etc.)
And for the hidden panel its 1 penny on the first square, 2 on the second, 1 on the third, 2 on the fourth and so on.
>>81507688
>>81507691
That's it. thanks.
>because Hume was right and induction is impossible
Uh? It's just as possible as any mathematical abstract concept.
Fuck, I can even easily write it in a perfectly legit mathematical way.
He thought the dad was offering this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheat_and_chessboard_problem
but the dad actually meant this >>81507688
and the extra pic about $0.96 meant this >>81507709
1+(2*63)=127 cents
The joke is that the boy assumed exponential progression, while the man meant "and 2 on the rest of the squares"
>>81507590
64 * 2 - 1 = 127
X*2 - 1 = Y
>>81507776
Fool!
>>81507993
an ongoing vendetta
>>81508014
>>81507590
The father could at least give him. 1 to 64 pennies.
>>81507993
Then she ran into the street and was hit by a car. During the ensuing chaos, he lifted her skirt and took a photo of her posteriori with his iPhone and posted it on Facebook.
>>81507590
The son was an idiot for believing that his dad has enough money to double every square. Never make deal or bets where the opponent can't pay you. (Because even a certain victory won't make you rich)
>>81508079
I don't understand. How is the guy trying to steal one twelfth of a dollar from you if he's the one giving you money?
>>81508170
It is a joke, in certain mathematical models 1+2+3+4+5...=-1/12
>>81508079
Wait. What? I'm a programmer, so I just trust the machines to do most all of my math for me. I'm lost.
>>81508233
Oh, okay.I may never understand what that means.
>>81508271
Basically, it means that given certain assumptions. You can prove that the sum of the natural numbers is -1/12. There are plenty of videos on this subject on youtube in case you're interested
>>81508247
>>81508271
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w-I6XTVZXww
>>81508271
Essentially it happens because the "sum" of an infinite series cannot be the same kind of operation as summing a finite series is, just like how "the last number in" is something that makes sense for a finite series but not for an infinite one, and a certain type of summing on the infinite series of 1 + 2 + 3 + 4... etc comes out to -1/12.
![1459519947-20160401[1].png](https://i.imgur.com/bZJiWZ7.png "1459519947-20160401[1].png")
I'm too dumb for math jokes. Here's something simple.
>>81508292
This doesn't make sense.
>>81508271
It's a lot easier to understand visually, the y-intercept of this graph basically, if you imagine the blocks going all the way into infinity.
>>81508447
I rather something simpler.
>>81508382
>>81508289
>>81508233
https://plus.maths.org/content/infinity-or-just-112
This guy explains it in detail. In truth, the sum of all natural numbers is, unsurprisingly, infinity.
The confusion comes from an Indian mathemetician who came up with a system to assign values to divergent infinite sums. Using this system, the value assigned to the sum of natural numbers is -1/12. That is not to say that the sum of natural numbers actually equals -1/12. That is only to say his system assigns that value to it (the link explains it better than I could)
Anyway, the internet is full of math enthusiasts who kinda sorta almost know what they are doing and they misinterpreted it to mean that somehow if you summed all natural numbers you'd end up at -1/12. The guy in the screencap is making a sarcastic reference to this. It's pretty obvious that if they guy gives you free money every day, there's never going to come a day when suddenly all that free money turns negative. He's meme'ing on the OP.
Please stop replying to me my brain is too little to cope with this
>>81508525
We could just stick to the confused /co/-related ones.
>>81508506
It does when and if you realize there is no such thing as infinity.
Infinity doesn't truly exist in the mathematical world. It's a theoretical idea of a number, and not a number itself.
Therefore, it doens't follow rules as numbers do, which is why things get fucking wierd when you start using it.
>>81508506
okay think about it like this:
You have a method for summing a series of numbers (just add them all together), so for any series it will give you a number which is its' sum. Then you try to use this method on any infinite sum and it just doesn't work, so this method will give you a definite answer for any finite sum.
You then think of a new method of getting to the same result, something which takes a series and gives you the sum of it, it works for all finite sums and gives you the exact same asnwers as the previous method of just adding them together, but this new method also gives you new answers for the previously undefined infinite sums. So you've essentially extended the sum definition to include infinite sums, and even though the numerical answers you get out of it might seem really stupid they are usefull nonetheless.
>>81508563
Again, I'm a programmer. All my financial data is in banks and handled by code. And my drunken peckings using Java and Double MAX_VALUE bounds to constrain a for loop that generates a sum to that point still generates a big fucking non-zero number.
So, I'm going to accept the deal.
>>81508615
Good on you.
Stick with what you know.
I dropped out of math during cal 2 because it stopped making a lick of sense to me. Theoretical stuff I just can't wrap my head around.
And building upon that theoretical stuff with more theoretical stuff is just ludicrous to me.
>>81508615
From my perspective, as long as my initial dollar amount is not null, I come out ahead.
Its almost as if no one passed 12 grade math
>>81508552
Someone post Wonder Woman vs the Neuro-ethicist.
>>81508708
>>81508766
>>81508634
Thank you. I was always afraid that I went down one path because I was too stupid to understand broader ideas.
>>81508506
Because math gets retarded. I especially fucking hate when they introduce an axiom or an assumption or whatever and they go JUST TRUST ME, X=ABCD and then they use that to get whatever result they wanted to prove to you. Fuck academics desu, can't teach for shit.
Also wrt the infinite thing it just never makes any sense
If A is any series of monotonically increasing positive numbers, why shouldn't it hold that the sum of said series should be larger as it increases. Hell, fuck that why can't you say definitively from the outset that the sum must be greater than zero?
Math is gay.
>>81508615
You're a fucking retard
If you're building an infinite loop, at some point the numbers become so large they can't fit into your int/float/whatever the fuck you're doing and all kinds of crazy shit happens
If you're using max_value bounds you're NOT building an infinite loop so whatever you're saying becomes immediately null and fucking void as we're talking about infinite series
>>81508292
I lose the line of logic when they move from sum 1 to sum 2 to sum 3. I don't really get why they're using the summing patterns they're using.
Like why is the last sum they find, the sum of adding 1+2+3+4... etc. the result of an equation that is their sum minus sum 2? Why is subtraction what they chose for that last bit of proof?
>>81508583
>limerick
>8 8 6 6 9
Unless this is some kind of meta joke I'm missing this is retarded
>>81508922
That still makes no sense. Not from a practical real-world point of view. If I have a constant influx of cash, I'm going to spend some of it which will randomly decrease the value being increased. And most likely I'm going to spend that on booze. So I'll die of liver cirrhosis long before the variables reach their max value and roll over into the negatives. And in that case, I win!
>>81508962
Limericks don't have to be perfect.
>>81508995No shit, infinite series don't work in real life
>>81508995
Some fucking dipshit intern needs to figure it out from there, and they need to pray to god that I commented my life code. With something more than
//Fuck this, I'm dead, Fuck you.
>>81507590
It's a joke about mathematical series. The dad only gave the first two numbers and the son assumed the series would be 1-2-4-8-16-32-etc which would amount to a gigantic number in the end, when it was really 1-2-2-2-2-etc. Both are valid series for the given starting number and the math joke is that the son should really have asked for more details because with what he had no good guess could actually be made regarding which series it is. He assumed the wrong one because...
An additional trap is that every math student has heard of the story with a chess board and powers of two (which is used to show the immense range of exponential growth), so whenever the chess board is mentioned they naturally expect the huge number.
>>81508947
Read the link in >>81508534
>>81507712
It has a backside as well
>>81509077
>every math student has heard of the story with a chess board and powers of two
They always used the Chinese rice story when I was a kid.
>>81509393
I only ever heard it as Indian Rice.
One of the great sadnesses of my life is that I cannot grasp mathematics.
>>81508962
It needs to be "is" instead of "equals"
>>81508766
But the obvious answer is to hand him over to the police and let the system work it out, it's not the place of a visiting diplomat or anything else she can claim to be to rule on that matter.
>>81507706
If the kid (well, adult kid) was right and the father WAS planning on going 2^i, it would've been an absolutely massive number.
>>81508766
He could just claim to have forgotten everything and that he has no idea how he got into posession of that bag of money. That defence apparently works in capeverses.
I mean, the current Tony Stark is in fact a Tony Stark who isn't even a citizen of the universe of the Tony Stark he replaced and has never been naturalized either. They even brainwashed him so that he could fill the replacement role better and yet nobody gives a fuck.
>>81507696
Nah, that would've given him $20.80.
>>81510080
Oh. Okay.
>>81510061
And he made a back-up or his brain and reverted to that back-up after Civil War and shit
>>81508766
For those wondering, this comic makes it seem more complicated than it is. Punishing someone isn't just about teaching a criminal a lesson, it also serves to dissuade others from committing the crime too.
For normal crimes like theft, the police/courts are unlikely to prosecute/sentence someone if they know for a fact that the person won't do it again, because the chance that punishing this one person will dissuade other petty thiefs is too small. But where it really comes into play is "I was only following orders" war criminals (like Nazis at the time) - you can stop them from committing more war crimes quite easily by taking them out of the military, but if you did that for everyone than there'd be no reason for someone in the future NOT to commit a war crime.
Because, y'know, when you wanted a break from learning theoretical maths, I presumed you wanted to learn about theoretical law instead.
>>81507590
Because there are thousands of sequences that begin with 1, 2... And he assumed it was 2*n^64.
>>81508804
The "just trust me" part isn't the problem. Even the axiom of choice doesn't have any assumptions or complicated maths. The ACTUAL problem is that mathematicians, for some reason, keep thinking that if you have two sequences of infinite length, they must be the same length. Even though that could prove that 0 = 1 quite easily, as follows:
S = 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + ...
S - S =
1 + 1 + 1 + 1...
__--1 - 1 - 1... (I can't do inline stuff)
Since everything after the first digit on the first line cancels out with everything on the second line, the only thing we're left with is 1. And since S - S = 1, therefore 0 = 1.
Like I said, the entire problem - and the problem with the axiom of choice, if anyone asks - is that an infinity calculated one way is not the same as an infinity calculated another way. Two sequences of infinite length are not the same length.
>>81508292
>We don't know if it's 1 or 0 so let's just make it 1/2
>>81507590
LOL
>>81510946
See the post above yours. Like I said, while that might not be correct, it's not the problem with the calculation.
>>81510946
That's not what they are saying. There is is even a link to the older video that explains it.
>>81508292
I couldn't watch it to the end. The violence they did to those numbers - with a straight face - it was just too much.
I can accept that there is an internally consistent way to make the sum of all natural numbers add up to -1/12, because maths is weird like that sometimes and you can do whatever the fuck you want as long as you can prove that it's consistent with your axioms. I can deal with that. Sometimes, things like "numbers" and "addition" don't mean quite what you think they mean.
But I can't watch some jackass with a Youtube account make a complete mockery of proving that.
>>81511252
That's exactly what they are saying, though. They literally said that. That is how much they care about rigor.
>>81511881
math is an abstract that seems to line up with reality at a casual level.
It doesn't once you reach certain points in either direction, (The most readily appearent being 1/3.) so proving things with math is ultimately saying, "Because I said so."
>>81507590
This comic used to be so funny before the author went all "I FUCKING LOVE SCIENCE!" a couple years ago.
Now it's fucking unreadable.
I fucking hate nerds.
>>81512035
It's more of a philosophy bent in my opinion.
>>81512104
You probably shouldn't be on the comics and cartoons board, then?
>>81512232
I meant science nerds.
>>81507590
This is not funny.
>>81508014
God I hope this doesn't happen to me. It is such a strong possibility too.
$20.80 would have made more sense.
This is why I hate Zach Weiner, he thinks communicating poorly is humor.
