Top Jokes
Images are sometimes not shown due to bandwidth/network limitations. Refreshing the page usually helps.
You are currently reading a thread in /g/ - Technology
You are currently reading a thread in /g/ - Technology
:^)
why does a+b become b+b in line 5/6?
>>53936805
>dividing by zero in the fourth step
CS baby freshman can't into math, is that the joke?
>>53936853
Because b=a
http://mathforum.org/library/drmath/view/57116.html
>tricking people since 1997
>>53936805
ab-b^2 = 0 though
>B=A
Pretty sure that's not how math works.
This is invalid because both variables are unknown, you can't solve an equation without knowing at least one of the variables.
>>53937108
you need to be 18 to browse this board
Knock knock
>a=b
>dividing by a-b
No one would be retarded enough not to see through this
>>53937144
>You need to be 18 to know equations
Nigger, I dropped out of high school, as there's no obligation to study here, been working since my 15, but I do still know some shit about equations.
>>53937102
you're a retard
the problem is he divides by (a-b) = 0
>>53936805
>b = a + b
>using the smiley with a carat nose
>>53937189
By that logic mtf=f
>>53937182
you can get a set of answers
seriously, you should study some more
>>53937225
the fuck are you on about?
it's just some random variables, they can be in any relationship you want
>>53937196
b+=a
> 2 variables
> 1 equation
solvable
>>53937229
Why would I, I'm already making more than enough money, I'm my own boss and I can set aside 3k-4k every month.
>>53936805
1 = 0.9999...
:^)
>>53937327
>using the smiley with a carat nose
>>53936805
b(a-b) = 0 and (a+b)(a-b) = 0
so 0=0
>>53937336
>calling it "the smiley with a carat nose"
>>53937315
he should have said, keep out of things that you have no fucking clue what you're on about and pretending that you do
>>53937252
right dude. replace a with b the next time you send an email and see how that goes. retard
Is it true /g/?
>>53938049
0/0 = 0/0
brb, being undefined
>>53937821
is that cathode with top running on it?
(cathode is an os x terminal emulator)
>>53936805
Even if everything else was correct, just the last two lines are already wrong.
if b = 2b, then if you subtract b on both sides you see that b = 0. Thus, you can't divide by b in this step.
>>53936958
>1997
Holy shit that discussion, that politeness. I can't stand it, I need to insult someone.
YOU FUCKING RETARD!
>>53936805
are there any like that, but not so obviously wrong?
>>53938182
>>>53936805 (OP)
Kinda
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_joke
>>53937327
B-but that's true, anon.
>>53938182
To some this will be obviously wrong. But I guess most can't see it instantly.
>>53936866
Thanks
>>53936866
>>53936866
>>53936866
>>53936866
This has already been solved.
Literally no point in discussing this, strange things happen when you divide by zero, holy shit it's like I'm in middle school all over again learning about infinity.
>>53937440
K den, sorry that I triggered you. According to the little knowledge I have, an equation with 2 variables that are both unknown should be invalid.
>>53938227
Negative numbers don't have square roots
>>53938324
it called imaginary number
>>53938324
>negative numbers don't have square roots
>>53936805
Since a = b, a - b = a - a = 0, so dividing both sides by a - b is a division by zero. Thus the last four equations are not proved.
>>53937108
please be trolling
>>53937102
...do you what a variable is?
>>53938346
>>53938347
How do you get the result if you're working imaginary numbers? What the fuck is the square root of -1?
>>53938227
from step 4 to 5, -1*-1= 1
>>53938383
sqrt(-1) =i
>>53938383
-1 has two square roots
i and -i
Look up De Moivre numbers.
>>53938346
Imaginary = non-existant
Fuck, you people are retarded/haven't gotten any education
>>53938396
>-1*-1= 1
it's sqrt(-1)*sqrt(-1) = i*i = -1
>>53938418
>>53938397
>>53938406
What does i stand for? What's it's value?
>inb4 i
>>53938419
>imaginary numbers don't exist in the real world
I hope you're trolling.
>>53938438
It doesn't have a real value.
You just treat it as a variable.
>>53938438
i means (0, 1) in the complex plane.
Define value.
>>53938439
>>imaginary friends don't exist irl
>you're stupid, my waifu is real
Eat a dick
>>53938438
"The term imaginary unit or unit imaginary number refers to a solution to the equation x2 = −1. By convention, the solution is usually denoted i. Since there is no real number with this property, it extends the real numbers, and under the assumption that the familiar properties of addition and multiplication (namely closure, associativity, commutativity and distributivity) continue to hold for this extension, the complex numbers are generated by including it.
Imaginary numbers are an important mathematical concept, which extends the real number system R to the complex number system C, which in turn provides at least one root for every nonconstant polynomial P(x). (See Algebraic closure and Fundamental theorem of algebra.) The term "imaginary" is used because there is no real number having a negative square.
There are two complex square roots of −1, namely i and −i, just as there are two complex square roots of every real number other than zero, which has one double square root."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imaginary_unit
>>53938452
Value as in, how much is 1 + i?
>>53938470
it's 1+i
>>53938453
So heat dissipation, fluid dynamics and quantum mechanics are all non-existent?
You're dumb. I'm done with you, I don't converse with double-digit IQ plebs.
>>53938490
I know you know what I mean, does it have a value, how much pesos would i pesos mean?
>>53938506
It would mean i pesos.
>>53938227
>is not a number
Kek, a 12 year old would know this.
>>53938520
How many 50 peso condoms could I buy with i pesos?
>>53938506
Mathematically, variables, expressions and functions have values. i is neither, so it doesn't have a value.
There's no such thing as i pesos, just as there's no such thing as π pesos. Don't confuse irrational with complex numbers though, that's just an analogy.
>>53938548
1/(50 i) condoms
>>53938557
So, i is actually never used, it's just a concept.
>>53938548
0.02i condoms
>>53938324
They do. That's not the error.
But in the last line, √-1 * √-1 = √(-1)^2 = 1
>>53938526
>my calculator can't do complex numbers
Get a decent calculator desu senpai. Even my crappy old Casio can do complex numbers, matrices, derivatives and integrals.
Idiots. You can't use difference between 2 squares unless it equals 0. That's your problem solved
>>53938227
on step two they take square root of the division (1/-1) and (-1/1) while on step 4 they did not use square root of the product (1*1) and (-1*-1),
sqrt(-1)*sqrt(-1) != sqrt(-1*-1)
>>53938425
ding ding ding
>>53938599
dong dong dong
>>53938569
Yes, it is used. See >>53938491 for some examples of areas where it has applications.
>>53938618
How is it used then?
>>53938569
It's used a hell of a lot in electrical engineering, especially with anything involving alternating current.
Why they don't use sin and cos to represent phase angle, I'll never know. But then I'm a mechanical engineer / aerodynamicist.
>>53938605
There are only 45 hours left!
>>53938654
complex power analysis, circuit phasor analysis, signal. Just ignore the troll
>>53938648
Look up holomorphic functions.
>>53938648
look up Mandelbrot set
and make trippy shit with complex numbers
>>53938595
This is the correct answer.
>>53938548
i pesos = 0*1 + 1*i pesos
the real part of i is zero
so it has no real value, only imaginary value
zero condoms
>>53938304
A = l^2
These are 2 unknown variables. They can be used to represent the properties of a certain geometric shape. How is the equation invalid?
>>53938227
i don't see what's wrong here
is 2 to 3 only allowed on positive numbers?
>>53938664
WHO WILL WIN?
IT'S THE FIGHT OF DECADE! NO, THE CENTURY!
>>53938438
Moderators!
Underage here
>>53938240
*tips fedora*
>>53938548
the i is imaginary, like your sex life
>>53938227
sqrt(1) can be 1 OR -1
sqrt(-1) can j OR -j
solved
>>53939022
A KNOCKOUT BLOW
>>53939037
>j
Physicist detected.
>b-but muh current!
>>53939075
admitted, i is better
electrical engineer though
kinda autistic you make a point of this though
>>53938526
square root of -1 is the definition of i as in imaginary unit, and i2 = -1
The problem is that because the calculation jumps to complex plane, there can exist more than one answer on the real number line. Basically what >>53938227 pulls is just an illegal move with the radical sign notation. The definition simply doesn't allow using it like that. Error happens between 2nd and 3rd step. The minus sign shouldn't be in denominator, because it implies that the starting point was sqrt(-1)-1, which isn't true.
Don't gigabyte more than you can chew fag lords
>>53939130
different anon but in real life a lot of times I restrain myself in order to not appear autistic for example some text using wrong character such as don`t instead of don't and many other little things
On 4chan I can unleash my full autism and point out at every little thing off. Haven't you noticed how when somebody posts a pic, some anons always notice a little detail totally unrelated to the purpose of pic?
>>53939347
Nice lower-case at the beginning of a sentence, arseweed.
>>53938227
Between the second and third step you set i = 1/i. Which isn't true.
>>53938227
sqrt(1)sqrt(1) = sqrt(-1)sqrt(-1)
(+/-1)(+/-1) = -1
-1 = -1
>>53939384
Nice double enter faggot, this isn't leddit you pleb
>>53939347
I understand, but that's also why I on 4chan I can call people out on their slightly autistic behaviour if I feel like
>>53939474
Kill you'reself.
>>53939708
*you're
>>53936805
You fucking retard
You just cannot divide each side by a-b (which is equal to 0)
>>53939780
*you`re
>>53938526
>i never went to college
the ironing
>>53939075
Physicists use i, Engineers use j.
>>53936805
>b(a - b) = (a + b)(a - b)
>>53940495
*you'rǝ
>>53940639
ba-b^2 = a^2-ab+ba-b^2
:9
Fuck this shit.
>>53938526
KANKER
>>53937182
>I'm a retard that dropped out of school at 15 but I'm still 100% certain that I know more about math than anyone on this board
>>53941128
>>>53940639
>ba-b^2 = a^2-ab+ba-b^2
>ba = a^2-ab+ba
>(ba)/(a) = a(a-b+b)/a
>b = a-b+b
>b = a
This was pointless
>>53936805
>b=a
>b(a-b)/(a-b) <=> b*0/0
>dividing by zero
>>53936805
a=b so (a-b) is zero and when you divide by zero you get indetermination.
>>53938134
>>53937821
Looks like Cool Retro Term actually.
https://github.com/Swordfish90/cool-retro-term
>>53941927
>a^2-ab+ba-b^2
retard
>>53937102
retard alert
>>53937182
And that shit you think you know is wrong.
>>53936805
>2*0=1*0
> => 2=1
>>53938227
This is just a proof that from step two to step three does not hold for complex numbers. It's a thing that works for reals, but not for complex.
You are dividing by 0 in the 3 and 4 line
>>53938227
This is literally obviously wrong to people who understand that a^2 has two roots, root(a) and -root(a)
>>53938648
electricity
physics
P = NP
proof:
P = NP where N = 0
Q.E.D.
>>53945001
only if P = 0 as well
I think you're looking for N = 1
>>53938227
>sqrt(1/-1) = sqrt(1)/sqrt(-1)
This step doesn't hold, sqrt only distributes over multiplication for non-negative real numbers.
>>53945001
Everytime I post that, I fuck up
where N = P = 0 or N = 1 or P = 1
>>53945043
>where N = P = 0 or N = 1 or P = 1
You still made two mistakes here. Jesus christ how bad are you?
>>53945015
this
>>53945052
>Jesus christ how bad are you?
this
>>53945063
>>53945056
>using the smiley with the carat nose
a-b=0 you cant fucking divide by zero lmao
>>53938176
In 1997, the only people chatting on the internet were rich, white men.
Rich, white men, when left in isolation, will be polite, have useful conversations, and create an atmosphere of success.
>>53938419
>imaginary numbers don't exist
EE student here.
We need to talk.
>>53938654
If you want to do AC analysis in the time domain, you can, but you end up with a fuckton of differential equations that you have to to solve.
If you take those equations and transform them to the frequency domain (phasor transform, Laplace transform, etc.), you can solve them algebraically, then transform them back to the time domain.
The trade off is when you're in the frequency domain, you'll end up having to use complex numbers.
>>53939037
this is mathematically incorrect.
just so you know sqrt(1) is always 1, but in an instance where x^2 = 1; x = -1 or 1
>>53938324
>>53945492
You can't defy logic. Well, you can, but that's a 1984 then.
>>53937327
1~0,(9)
Corrected
>>53946787
1 = 0.999̅9
Corrected.
>>53937327
>>53946787
>>53946870
1 = 1
simplified
>>53946911
1
Simplified.
>>53946954
> b = a
Mbthcucks cbn't possibly ae this butistic
>>53946954
>simplifying an equation to a number
Okay
>>53946993
who are you quoting? Here's you reply newfriend.
>>53945188
>left in isolation
I thought hitler went even more nuts in the Führerbunker.
>>53947001
1 = 1 evaluates to true.
1 evaluates to true.
Not only do they both evaluate to true, but the origional value is also still stored. Simplified.
Mathematically and programmatically sound.
>>53947007
That was to bring up the quick reply form
>>53947031
then delete it after you do you lazy cuck
>>53947029
>1 evaluates to true
This is why mathematicians don't take “CS majors” seriously
>>53947043
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boolean_algebra
I think we get along with mathematicians just fine.
>>53940619
>he lives in a backwards country where complex numbers aren’t teached in high school
if ((value & 0x1 == value) //bit is set, we can consider this to be true.
What is wrong with this?
>>53947065
Typical, I forgot the ")"
>>53947061
Thanks Obama. Common core sure is working great at dumbing down the cattle.
>>53938227
√ x^2 =∣ x ∣
>>53947065
depends, what language?
>>53947259
C & C++
>>53947065
It doesn't seem to achieve very much with the current context. it returns false unless value == 0x1.
So it's needlessly convoluted and you may as well check if value == true.
The point of source code is to be human readable. Not needlessly complex.
>>53947300
its just "is value AND 1 equal to value?", which is only true if value == 0 or 1
Am I wrong? I don't get it
>>53947375
>>53947372
>>53947372
Oh, sorry, I moved off the point a tad.
It's common practice to use single bits as flags like that.
I was just relating it to >>53947043
>>53947372
lol at this guy talking down to you while getting the answer wrong
>>53947029
>1 evaluates to true.
Nah bro. Only because C "evalutes 1 to true" doesn't mean it's theoretically correct.
"True" is a logical value.
1 is a number.
You have both in first-order logic, but they are not the same. A function may return you 1, but only predicates return "true".
>>53947372
>>53947392
I actually made a mistake.
0000
0001
------
0000
0000 == 0000 true.
0001
0001
------
0001
0001 == 0001 true.
1111
0001
------
0001
1111 != 0001 false.
1010
0001
------
0000
1010 != 0000 false.
So it looks like all it really does is return true if value is == 0x0 or 0x1.
If I understand right bitwise and isn't an assignemnt operator.
so the value variable is left unchanged.
Hey retards, you don't need to divide by 0 in this case to solve the problem.
Just MULTIPLY by 0 and you end up with 0 = 0 which is correct.
>>53947448
Are you claiming 1 does not exist? Or are you claiming that 1=1 and 1 are not themselves equal?
0.999̅9 = 1
(1=1) = 1
1
So unless your claim is that 1 does not equal 1 then no matter how you want to look at it the equation was simplified because being equal to yourself is the same as being yourself.
>>53938526
jij bent echt kankerdom
ga terug naar VMBO pauper
>>53947444
The point still stands the logic in it's current context is not very clear and is very prone to mistakes. Me making a mistake just proves my own point that needlessly complex or confusing logic is difficult to debug and difficult to quickly and easily read.
>>53947507
This is some truly inspired trolling how do you even come up with this shit lmao
>>53947537
lol dude that's the point of the thread
>>53947552
ok you are muted.
1=1 and 1 are mathematically and logically equivalent. You must be a liberal or feminist because you don't understand logic.
>>53947065
it should beif ((value & 0x1) == 0x01)
since the and operation set all other bits to o
>>53947507
Neither the former nor the latter.
In math it always depends on the system you refer to.
>>53947570
Depends. The current code if properly implicated should instead beif (value == 0x0 || value == 0x1)
>>53936805
you have an error in step 4. that's not how reduction works, 4dgelord
>>53947593
Yes I know, a redundant function, don't hate me.typdef unsigned char uint8 //Assuming uchar is 8bits wide ofc
bool is_set(unsigned char val, unsigned char mask){
return ((val & mask) == val) ? true : false;
}
>>53947788
fucking hell, I need more sleep, what is wrong with me, I can't even type something out without missing obvious mistakes.
I'm out.
>>53947788
Everything I wrote is wrong, I'm off to bed.
>>53937182
you actually don't know shit
>>53937607
please keep posting, this thread needs saving
>>53947871
As a famous Disney princess once said, let it go,
>>53937182
Wow you should get your GED and apply to game grumps. You could argue about science with Brian and win every argument since you are so smart.
>>53936805
>0=0
> let's divide by 0
Dafuq
>>53938993
>Underage
You mean a CS grad.
>>53947065
>>53947570
>>53947593
>>53947788
All of you people can't program C for shit.
This is how an actual C programmer would write that:if (value & 0x1) {
// do something
}
>>53947568
>1=1 and 1 are mathematically and logically equivalent.
This is why mathematicians don't take “CS majors” seriously.
>this thread
Holy lel.
>>53936958
This was posted a day before I was born... I'm not sure how to fell.
>>53937182
>>53948447
In C, 1 evaluates to 1. 1 == 1 also evaluates to 1.
Checkmate, athetits
>>53951257
>in C
Right, because C constitutes the philosophical foundations of rigorous modern mathematics.
>>53937158
Who's there?
NP = P
>>53937375
imagine being so kekfats you look at an emoticon and see food
ITT: g shows how stupid it really is
>>53951230
>no nothing
u wot?
How does b=a+b when b=a?
>>53939384
Exhibit A
>>53938182
>>53951732
The actual phrase is 'love of money is the root of all problems'
Which completely changes the meaning.
>>53938648
All numbers and other structures, are concepts to help us deal with real problems.
Some problems are simple, like counting how many apples you got in your fridge...
1, 2 or 5. Simple.
Some other problems are more complicated. Like traveling at 100km per hour.
Yes, but which direction? 100 alone is not enough to describe the problem.
For these problems, and more complicated ones, we invent more abstract concepts than simple, integer numbers.
Imagine this, as an example.
You're travelling on a straight line.
Multiplying with i means you turn right 90 degrees. Multiplying again with i, you turn right another 90 degrees.
That is, multiplying by i^2=-1, means you've turned 180 degrees, which means you're traveling on the same line, opposite direction.
See? i^2=-1, you travel like you did, but opposite direction. Makes sense, if you want to model and solve a problem.
>>53938304
Once again, you know nothing what you're talking about. You didn't even finish the part of math that should be renamed to "common sense"
>>53938304
>According to the little knowledge I have, an equation with 2 variables that are both unknown should be invalid.
How do you describe a curve on a plane then? Or are curves also invalid?
>>53948387
What fucking movie is that, i keep seeing it all over the place.
>>53938227
EULER DIED FOR YOUR EQUATIONS
