>go to school
>It's math time
>you see this on the blackboard (pic related)
What you do, /sci/ ?
>>7680834
shut the fuck up
>>7680834
(mod 1)
>>7680834
There we go, fixed
I'd do something like this:
Let A={2,5} and define +:AxA -> A to be a+b=5, ∀a,b in A.
I'm aware this has a big flaw in how the operation is defined but fite me irl
prove 2+2 != 5
>you cant
>>7680834
depends on which axioms we're using
>>7680914
If you use the axiom of choice in your proofs you're a faggot.
Let 2=2.5
Add a shadow-number.
>teacher breaking convention
Shit school.
>>7680940
Physicist detected
>>7680932
2=2.5
-2=-2.5
2-2=2-2.5
0=.5
0-5=.5-5
-5=.0
0=.5
.-0=.-.5
.-0=5 /*(-1)
.0=-5
2=2.5
2-5=2.5-5
-3=2.
2-(-3)=2-2.
5=0.
>>7680834
The equation is being affected by dark variables.
>>7680834
it's correct for really big values of 2
I recomend watching Vsauce's Banach-Tarski paradox ;) everyone who says that's bullshit... obviously I can't actually say that Michel is wright... cause he explains so much that I end up building my opinion on what he said earlier
>>7680849
Upvote :p
>>7680834
starting to doublethink. (someone her, who doesn't understand?)
>>7681061
Kek'd
>>7680834
I sigh at all the children around me who are now victims of the shitty math programs made by English major retards
>>7680834
Define 1 to be "_"
Define 2 to be "__"
Define 5 to be "____"
The symbols we choose to represent values are arbitrary.
>>7681702
1984?
>>7680834
Ask what + what = 4.
You numb twats expect people to agree that 0.9[...] is equal to 1. And yet, actively imply I should I give a shit that "the notation" has changed? Has anything functional about the underlying system itself, changed? Is it a net improvement? What has 4-ness and 5-ness become? What part of mathematics are you even working with?
Fuck off.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EHAuGA7gqFU
accept it
>>7682228
>edgy
>>7682792
Jealous of the edge.
>>7680834
I add a black-number to account for inaccuracy
>>7681587
>Vsauce's Banach-Tarski paradox
If you were to actually understand geometry and set theory, you'd see that this paradox is just a non-trivial application of this:
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradoxical_set
There is nothing special about its proof. Also, Banach was very important in the development of functional analysis, and Tarski did some essential research in logic and set theory.
The Banach Tarski paradox may sound quite counterintuitive but it's simply your fault for not knowing mathematics. I hate you.
>>7682844
Nice dubs. ALso, the Banach-Tarski paradox implies the axiom of choice kek
>>7680834
I could not help but notice your png was not optimized anon.
I have optimized your png.
Your png is now optimized.
>>7680849
Ayyyyyy
>>7681631
+1 upboated xD
EDIT: fixed grammar mistakes
>>7681061
Found the physicist
>>7680834
>What you do
... report to Room 101, of course.
What do *you* do, Winston?
>>7682890
Upvoted. Fixed spelling mistake.
Ayyyyyyy
>>7681019
Your flaw is that you're subtracting 2,5 (the value) from 2 (the variable which is assigned the value 2,5) and treat both as values.
If a=2,5
a-2,5=0
Similarly
2=2,5
2-2,5=0 not 0,5
>>7680834
>2+2=5
>must have slipped into the Berenstoin universe
>mfw when
