Maths question - a toughy
7,886 Views | 125 Replies
At 1/9/07 04:29 PM, Cybex wrote:At 1/9/07 04:25 PM, DareDevilGuy wrote: Care to explain how you got that answer?That's the answer because a large chunk of important mathematical theories don't work if that isn't the case.
This is why I hate maths...
At 1/9/07 04:29 PM, Cybex wrote:At 1/9/07 04:25 PM, DareDevilGuy wrote: Care to explain how you got that answer?That's the answer because a large chunk of important mathematical theories don't work if that isn't the case.
So, a large chunk of important mathematical theories only work if 1 + 2 + 3 all they way up to infinity equals negative 1/12....
riiiiight.
I still think I'm right >:P
At 1/9/07 04:30 PM, CrimsonEdge wrote: The difference here is that we use .3 and .316 (or whatever Pi is, it's been a long time) to represent them as a whole. We use estimates and rough numbers, not the actual thing.
Ouch, I know.
0.3 x 3 = 0.9 ≠1
Maths doesn't work when you simplify continuous numbers.
Also, things like size and age are infinite numbers.
At 1/9/07 03:45 PM, Cybex wrote: 1+2+3+4+5+6+7+.......+infinity-1+infinity (obviously including all numbers inbetween)?
-1
Since infinity is all numbers, then when you add infinity, you get nothing added to it. Then when you subtract one, sicne it was all numbers and you're back to 0, it's negative 1. And infinity isn't negative, so you can't add up from that.
Am I Right?
This, it seems, is actually an answer necessary for string theory to work as well. Analytical continuation must be carried out to get that answer. I am not inclined with the knowledge to fully understand such things as of yet, but I believe that it is possible.
At 1/9/07 04:36 PM, Frenzy wrote: Since infinity is all numbers, then when you add infinity, you get nothing added to it. Then when you subtract one, sicne it was all numbers and you're back to 0, it's negative 1. And infinity isn't negative, so you can't add up from that.
Infinity isn't all numbers, though. Infinity is the highest number you can possibly possibly have, which doesn't exist as a real number.
Also, unless you show us which mathematical theories rely on this, you're still getting lynched. And going in my uncool book. In red ink.
i bet i could make up a mathematical theory
At 1/9/07 04:27 PM, CrimsonEdge wrote: People who do math that deals with infinites suck at math.
There are two distinct styles of mathematics, applied math and pure theory. Applied math is for the current world while pure theory is for the future. Infinity is a heavy presence in both fields, but more so with pure theory. My degree is in pure theory, and I'll tell you this right now-- almost everything I did involved infinity and I wouldn't say one person in any of my classes sucked at math. Infinity is a concept that is hard to grasp, but only if you can't grasp it and use it in even everyday math do you really suck at math.
Now going back to this question, the summation of the natural numbers (the set N) cannot be -1/12. This is a divergent summation and it is impossible to converge to any number let alone a negative number. Please show your work or provide a link to the spurious answer you have.
Count the bodies like sheep to the rhythm of the war drum...
I've come to the conclusion that he wanted to impress the BBS, but doesn't know anything about why the answer is supposedly what it is.
In which case, fail.
At 1/9/07 04:33 PM, CrimsonEdge wrote: I'll put it to you like this. You are giving no proof, no theories, no formulas, no evidence, nothing, as to how or why you got that answer. Give them or you're a kid who had a really shitty math teacher.
I can give you proof, but you'd be no less confused than you are now.
At 1/9/07 04:48 PM, Jesus wrote:At 1/9/07 04:33 PM, CrimsonEdge wrote: I'll put it to you like this. You are giving no proof, no theories, no formulas, no evidence, nothing, as to how or why you got that answer. Give them or you're a kid who had a really shitty math teacher.I can give you proof, but you'd be no less confused than you are now.
Have fun with your proof.
Dude seriously, stop pretending you're smart shit and either admit you have no fucking clue what you're talking about, or stfu.
Preferably both.
At 1/9/07 04:24 PM, Cybex wrote:At 1/9/07 04:22 PM, Arby wrote: out with it already! >:(Ok, the answer is -1/12
I told you you wouldn't like it. This is not a joke by the way.
Well, now you have to prove it. Since you gave a real, definite number, you should be able to give a real, definite explaination with calculations.
Unless you do so, your just trying to act smart ass.
At 1/9/07 04:49 PM, Backseat-Mod wrote: Dude seriously, stop pretending you're smart shit and either admit you have no fucking clue what you're talking about, or stfu.
I admit 100% that i have absolutely no fucking clue what i'm talking about, but i'm not taking back my statement that all positive integers add up to -1/12. If you can't understand how it works, be like me and stop caring. You don't need to take it out on me.
At 1/9/07 04:36 PM, Cosmonautical wrote: 0.3 x 3 = 0.9 ≠1
Maths doesn't work when you simplify continuous numbers.
Also, things like size and age are infinite numbers.
Bzzt. Wrong sir. When we look at, for example, 1/3'rd we don't use .33333333333333333333333333333333333333333333 333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333 333333333333333 to the 10,000,000,000,000,000,000th power * stfu. We use .3, .33, .333, or however many decimal places are needed. We use rounding, common sense, and other such things to formulate aproximate values which are good enough, if not more accurate than it's actually needed to be.
And no, things like size and age are not infinite numbers. That statement doesn't even make sense. I am 19. I am not infinite. If you were to say that time has no end, then you may or may not be correct. No one knows.
At 1/9/07 04:41 PM, Back-Door-Baron wrote: There are two distinct styles of mathematics, applied math and pure theory. Applied math is for the current world while pure theory is for the future.
Right. Theory is just that>>theory.
Infinity is a heavy presence in both fields, but more so with pure theory. My degree is in pure theory, and I'll tell you this right now-- almost everything I did involved infinity and I wouldn't say one person in any of my classes sucked at math.
Oh you guys are probably amazing at math, no doubt. I'm saying that you're all idiots for using an idea, which is no different than freedom, religion, or anything else, to try to base complex theories around. Using a representation of something that has no bounds is pretty lame. I'll use an example that everyone can use.
Goku's power level is 9,000. This number is tangable.
Gohan's power level is infinite. This is not a number, it is a representation of the non-ending continuation of numbers. Math is the science of numbers. Using infinite numbers in science is like trying to calculate the mass of Dark Matter. It's absolutely shit retarded and thinking you've done something with it proves that you haven't got the slightest idea of what it is you are dealing with.
Now, I'm not saying you or the people you went to school with are dunces, I'm simply saying that putting an idea into math is no different than the following equation:
1+2+FREEDOM=X Find X.
Infinity is a concept that is hard to grasp, but only if you can't grasp it and use it in even everyday math do you really suck at math.
No sir. You can not use such things as "Infinity+1" in an equation. There is no end point to add that plus 1. You can not add something of same "value" to something that never ends. You can not add an extra penny to an infinite number of pennies. The same applies here. It's absolute common sense and the only reason people attempt to use it in maths NOW is because of child hood tendencies to try to beat someone by saying "Infinity+1!!!!!" No. Different.
At 1/9/07 04:51 PM, kidray76 wrote: Well, now you have to prove it. Since you gave a real, definite number, you should be able to give a real, definite explaination with calculations.
Unless you do so, your just trying to act smart ass.
I wasn't trying to act smartass, the purpose of this thread wasn't to make you think i'm uber clever, it was to waste your time trying to work out an equation, before unleashing a useless fact upon you. I didn't realise you'd take it all so personally, although i can now see how it may look like i was rying to look clever.
At 1/9/07 04:55 PM, Cybex wrote:At 1/9/07 04:51 PM, kidray76 wrote: Well, now you have to prove it. Since you gave a real, definite number, you should be able to give a real, definite explaination with calculations.I wasn't trying to act smartass, the purpose of this thread wasn't to make you think i'm uber clever, it was to waste your time trying to work out an equation, before unleashing a useless fact upon you. I didn't realise you'd take it all so personally, although i can now see how it may look like i was rying to look clever.
Unless you do so, your just trying to act smart ass.
You kinda quoted everyone that gave a guess and sorta made us feel that way. In any event, maybe u should request this thread to be locked since it's be rotted in so many different ways.
At 1/9/07 04:54 PM, CrimsonEdge wrote: And no, things like size and age are not infinite numbers. That statement doesn't even make sense. I am 19. I am not infinite. If you were to say that time has no end, then you may or may not be correct. No one knows.
I'm not talking about that. Things like the number of fingers on your hand are integers, but the length of your fingers is a number which will have infinite accuracy (i.e. one may be 7.485957395757... etc cm in length.) You will never be able to completely accurately give a value for your age or size because they are not constant variables.
You are not exactly 19 years old.
At 1/9/07 05:00 PM, PULFMOT wrote: You kinda quoted everyone that gave a guess and sorta made us feel that way. In any event, maybe u should request this thread to be locked since it's be rotted in so many different ways.
I solemly swear that my quoting everyone who made guesses was purely an act of childish "I know something you don't know :P) and in know way trying to suggest i'm more intelligent than you.
For anyone angry at me, i gave you a question, told you you wouldn't like the answer, told you the answer and gave some proof, even if no one with any kind of life would ever understand. I've given you everything you wanted so you have nothing to complain about.
At 1/9/07 05:02 PM, Cosmonautical wrote: I'm not talking about that. Things like the number of fingers on your hand are integers, but the length of your fingers is a number which will have infinite accuracy (i.e. one may be 7.485957395757... etc cm in length.) You will never be able to completely accurately give a value for your age or size because they are not constant variables.
You are not exactly 19 years old.
*Are constant variables.
Too many things have an infinite value to say that infinity is a stupid idea.
I don't get why you would post a "math" question when you don't even understand the answer.
I'm still right btw
At 1/9/07 03:45 PM, Cybex wrote: If anyone can get the answer to this, they get a cookie and much respect from me. I'm telling you now you'll get it wrong.
What is:
1+2+3+4+5+6+7+.......+infinity-1+infinity (obviously including all numbers inbetween)?
Get ready to do some wrong guessing.
it is +3 infinity noob!
At 1/9/07 05:02 PM, Cosmonautical wrote: I'm not talking about that. Things like the number of fingers on your hand are integers, but the length of your fingers is a number which will have infinite accuracy (i.e. one may be 7.485957395757... etc cm in length.)
Correct, this is why we use estimates and rough guessings. This is why Pi is always rounded down. This is why 1/3, 2/3, and 3/3 are rounded up or down. This is why infinite is not used in mathematics as it's an idea, not an integer.
You will never be able to completely accurately give a value for your age or size because they are not constant variables.
You are wrong about age. You are born on a precise moment in time. Exactly one year later, you will be one years old exactly. There will be no decimal value as it will be exact.
You are not exactly 19 years old.
But I was and will be exactly 20 at one point on August the 5th.
At 1/9/07 05:03 PM, Cybex wrote: For anyone angry at me, i gave you a question, told you you wouldn't like the answer, told you the answer and gave some proof, even if no one with any kind of life would ever understand. I've given you everything you wanted so you have nothing to complain about.
Not only did you give the wrong equation, but you gave the wrong answer for the equation you gave. Not only that, but you put up a link to shit about the string theory (which is a theory and has little to nothing to do with mathematical theories). Of course, in other dimensions 2+2=1/3, this doesn't make it true.
Hence the absolute flaw with everything you've said. You're an idiot.
At 1/9/07 05:06 PM, brainface wrote: I don't get why you would post a "math" question when you don't even understand the answer.
Just for a bit of trivia. I guess my idea of an interesting fact is different from everyone elses.
I'm still right btw
If you say so.
At 1/9/07 05:08 PM, CrimsonEdge wrote:You will never be able to completely accurately give a value for your age or size because they are not constant variables.You are wrong about age. You are born on a precise moment in time. Exactly one year later, you will be one years old exactly. There will be no decimal value as it will be exact.
And, because time is a constant variable, the amount of time you were ever exactly one age is equal to 1/infinity. Even if you could stop time, you would never be able to get a moment were your age is an exact integer because of this.
And I still won't accept that you just round one third to 0.3. It just doesn't work. If you want to simplify it, you just write it as 1/3.
At 1/9/07 04:29 PM, Cybex wrote:
That's the answer because a large chunk of important mathematical theories don't work if that isn't the case.
How were you able to remove the portion of your brian that allows you to tell good
lies, and not random bullshit that you (and no one else here can) can explian.
At 1/9/07 04:48 PM, Jesus wrote: I can give you proof, but you'd be no less confused than you are now.
Have fun with your proof.
Proof is this?
Lagrangian approach
n-dimensional Minkowski spacetime
Hamiltonian approach
enormous amount of "gauge symmetry"
quantizing a bunch of harmonic oscillators
Well, to me that sounds like a big ol' lump of bullshit. Most of the terms in that article are completely made-up. Whoever wrote that article was laughing at anybody who actually believed it.
I'll stick with my original answer X+infinity=infinity, UNLESS there's a -infinity or a *=-1 in the equation. Which there isn'r.
314159 26535 89793 23846 26433 83279 50288 419716939937510
At 1/9/07 05:15 PM, sandStorm-studios wrote: 314159 26535 89793 23846 26433 83279 50288 419716939937510
You forgot the decimal point :O
