JavaScript is required to use Bungie.net

OffTopic

Surf a Flood of random discussion.
5/16/2016 3:54:20 PM
120

Let's see how bad at math you guys are.

Really simple, easy test this time, though I'm sure #offtopic is not good enough at math to do this. [b]Prove 1=1[/b] Also, the above picture is [i]not[/i] a hint or something like that.

Posting in language:

 

Play nice. Take a minute to review our Code of Conduct before submitting your post. Cancel Edit Create Fireteam Post

  • I put two ones on a scale and it balanced.

    Posting in language:

     

    Play nice. Take a minute to review our Code of Conduct before submitting your post. Cancel Edit Create Fireteam Post

  • Shouldn't be too hard considering we're all 6'5" tall super geniuses with an IQ of 175, a 350 kilo bench, a 9 inch dick and we've all taken at least four cheerleader virginities. And, to top it all off, we're only 14. [spoiler]E-statting is cancer.[/spoiler]

    Posting in language:

     

    Play nice. Take a minute to review our Code of Conduct before submitting your post. Cancel Edit Create Fireteam Post

    2 Replies
    • 1 equals 1 because they're the same number you fuktard.

      Posting in language:

       

      Play nice. Take a minute to review our Code of Conduct before submitting your post. Cancel Edit Create Fireteam Post

      4 Replies
      • "Sony can you count to 4?" "1, 2, 3, 4" "Good now microsoft can you?" "1, 360, 1" "Ok ok good try but you failed, now what about atari?" "2600..." .............

        Posting in language:

         

        Play nice. Take a minute to review our Code of Conduct before submitting your post. Cancel Edit Create Fireteam Post

        7 Replies
        • The above picture totally gave it away

          Posting in language:

           

          Play nice. Take a minute to review our Code of Conduct before submitting your post. Cancel Edit Create Fireteam Post

        • But..if 1 is not equal to 1, wouldn't that destroy mathematics? If 1 is not equal to 1, how 1 + 1 can be 2?

          Posting in language:

           

          Play nice. Take a minute to review our Code of Conduct before submitting your post. Cancel Edit Create Fireteam Post

        • 0/0=2 0/0=100 / 100 =(10•10) / (10•10) =(10^2•10^2) / 10(10-10) =((10+10)(10-10)) / (10(10-10)) =(10+10) / 10 =20 / 10 =[b][u]2[/u][/b]

          Posting in language:

           

          Play nice. Take a minute to review our Code of Conduct before submitting your post. Cancel Edit Create Fireteam Post

        • 1 does not equal 1. 1 = 2 Let x = y Rearrange so that x - y = 0 Multiply by 2 2x - 2y = 0 substitute in x-y so that 2x - 2y = x - y Factorise 2(x - y) = x - y Divide by x-y to get rid of the letters. 2(x - y)/x-y = x-y/x-y What we are left with 2 = 1 So you are all wrong. Get fukked nerds. *walks away with explosions and shit*

          Posting in language:

           

          Play nice. Take a minute to review our Code of Conduct before submitting your post. Cancel Edit Create Fireteam Post

          4 Replies
          • 1+1=potato

            Posting in language:

             

            Play nice. Take a minute to review our Code of Conduct before submitting your post. Cancel Edit Create Fireteam Post

          • Interesting. From the little I've gathered on Google and from a lengthy post here somewhere using axioms to create sets, I say that the axiom dictates the set exists. The axiom also states that sets containing the same sets are equal. It's from that rule that we can begin to prove. You cannot really prove 1=1 in the sense you are asking because it's so fundamental it's beyond proving. It is pre proof. But seeing as 1 and 1 are sets containing the same sets then 1=1. It's not a proof I know but it's what we've established as one.

            Posting in language:

             

            Play nice. Take a minute to review our Code of Conduct before submitting your post. Cancel Edit Create Fireteam Post

          • Mr. Door? Why do you like being an ass hole?

            Posting in language:

             

            Play nice. Take a minute to review our Code of Conduct before submitting your post. Cancel Edit Create Fireteam Post

            2 Replies
            • Edited by Off topics Chef: 5/18/2016 9:50:07 PM
              It doesn't 1=0.999999999999999

              Posting in language:

               

              Play nice. Take a minute to review our Code of Conduct before submitting your post. Cancel Edit Create Fireteam Post

              2 Replies
              • I'm still not learned enough in maths to prove this.

                Posting in language:

                 

                Play nice. Take a minute to review our Code of Conduct before submitting your post. Cancel Edit Create Fireteam Post

              • If 1 does not equal 1 then 1 > 1, which also means 1 < 1. But that is a contradiction. QED?

                Posting in language:

                 

                Play nice. Take a minute to review our Code of Conduct before submitting your post. Cancel Edit Create Fireteam Post

                1 Reply
                • [quote]An accepted foundation for mathematics is known as Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory. In this foundation, we have the basic notion of something called a set. Because of this, everything we develop in this foundation is at its heart just a set. Further, our sets obey several axioms, because we need a starting point for our reasoning. We begin with the following axiom. Axiom 0. There exists a set. But what's a set? Intuitively, a set is just a collection of (usually similar) objects, but this is a circular definition. This may be bothersome, which is why we asserted the existence of some thing. Now our universe of discussion is not empty. We now know there exists a set -- whatever that may be. However, the mere existence of something is pretty boring, so we introduce an operation between our sets. Since sets are intuitively good for collecting things, we introduce the concept of elementhood. Remember, everything in our universe is a set, so the only thing here our sets can collect is just other sets. Elementhood is our second basic notion. Now suppose we come across a large set. Since everything in our universe is a set, this large set contains sets too. We want to, and should be able to, look into this large set, pick out a few favorites, and form them into our very own set. Since our new set consists of already existing sets, and it's smaller than the large set, it should exist! This is our next axiom -- the axiom of comprehension. Axiom 3. There exists a set containing specific elements from any other already existing set. How the specific elements are chosen from the already existing set are given by a formula. So, this axiom is technically known as an axiom schema because we are asserting it for any formula. Now check this out. We know at least one set exists. Let's look inside this set, and let's pick out those elements which both obey a specific formula and at the same do not obey that same specific formula. That's a contradiction, because it can never happen. Nevertheless, our axiom asserts the existence of a set consisting of specific elements from an already existing set. It just so happens that there none of the elements we looked at were sets we wanted. As a result, the set we form is empty. Definition 0. The set consisting of no elements is called an empty set. Notice the word choice in the above definition. We found one empty set. Maybe there are others? After all, we chose an already existing set and formed an empty set from it under the comprehension scheme. If we choose a different already existing set, is the empty set we form from it different than the one we previously formed? We refine our foggy foundation by sidetracking to an ontological discussion about the identity and the indiscernibility of objects. There are two principles to be discussed. The indiscernibility of identicals. The identity of indiscernibiles The first principle says that if two objects are identical, then they share all the same properties. This principle is typically accepted as a logical truth, i.e. an axiom of equality, and it's mostly uncontroversial. Say it out loud a couple times to convince yourself! The second principle says that if two objects share all the same properties, they are identical. This principle is much more controversial! Why should two things that share all of the same properties be equal? If we buy a new silverware set at the store and it comes with four knives, which share the same wooden handle, the same amount of serrated tips, and the same function, and whatever other property you can think of, they still cannot be the same knife! If they were the same knife, we wouldn't have four of them! In our universe of discussion, our sets are simple and abstract enough that we'll allow them to obey the second principle. Recall that the only property our sets can have is the property of containing other sets, so that we assert the following. Axiom 1. If every element of one set is an element of some other set, and vice-versa, then the two sets are equal. This axiom is known as the axiom of extensionality, and really just says that a set is uniquely determined by its elements -- which they should be, since that's the only defining property about sets! With extensionality, we can prove uniqueness of sets. As an example, suppose we find two empty sets, and let's call them x and y. Then every element of x is an element of y is true vacuously because x has no elements. Similarly, every element of y is an element of x for the same reason. By extensionality, it must be true that x = y. What we've proven is the uniqueness of empty sets, so that we can revise our above definition. Definition 0 (revised). The set consisting of no elements is called the empty set, and it's denoted by 0. We now define the natural numbers individually. Definition. Zero is the empty set, 0. Definition. One (1) is the set containing only zero. Definition. Two (2) is the set containing only zero and one Definition. Three (3) is the set containing only zero, one, and two. etc... We've only proven the existence of zero, but what about the others? Comprehension won't do the job, since comprehension can only form smaller sets of already existing sets, and the empty set is as small as it can get! We now need an axiom that allows us to construct explicit sets from already existing sets. Axiom 4. There exists a set containing two already existing sets. This is known as the pairing axiom. Notice that it does not state the existence of a set containing only the two chosen existing sets. For that, we apply comprehension to pick out the two. Since we know the empty set 0 exists, we'll form a set containing 0 and 0. We can denote sets explicitly using curly brackets, where whatever is inside the set goes inside the curly brackets. Under this notation, the set we wish to form is denoted as {0,0}, and zero is denoted as { }. Further, 1 = {0}, 2 = {0,1}, and 3 = {0,1,2} by the above definitions. The question is now whether or not {0} = {0,0}? Well of course, by extensionality! Now since {0,0} exists, so does {0}, and by definition so does 1. We can prove that the individual natural numbers exist in a similar way. Now since 1 exists, we can ask if 1 = 1? But this is obviously true, because 1 only contains 0, and two sets are equal if they have the same elements, as asserted by our axiom of extensionality. So, if you have a problem accepting 1 = 1, then you must find the identity of indiscernibiles controversial![/quote] Simple.

                  Posting in language:

                   

                  Play nice. Take a minute to review our Code of Conduct before submitting your post. Cancel Edit Create Fireteam Post

                  1 Reply
                  • Edited by BobLoblaw: 5/18/2016 8:33:44 PM
                    ..

                    Posting in language:

                     

                    Play nice. Take a minute to review our Code of Conduct before submitting your post. Cancel Edit Create Fireteam Post

                  • Well it is quite simple OP. You see it all goes back to https://www.bungie.net/uR/Forums/Post/119562822?page=0&sort=0&showBanned=0&path=0

                    Posting in language:

                     

                    Play nice. Take a minute to review our Code of Conduct before submitting your post. Cancel Edit Create Fireteam Post

                    1 Reply
                    • 1+1=2 2-1=1

                      Posting in language:

                       

                      Play nice. Take a minute to review our Code of Conduct before submitting your post. Cancel Edit Create Fireteam Post

                      5 Replies
                      • Legend=1

                        Posting in language:

                         

                        Play nice. Take a minute to review our Code of Conduct before submitting your post. Cancel Edit Create Fireteam Post

                      • Reflexive property?

                        Posting in language:

                         

                        Play nice. Take a minute to review our Code of Conduct before submitting your post. Cancel Edit Create Fireteam Post

                        1 Reply
                        • "Prove 1=1" 1......1 Done.

                          Posting in language:

                           

                          Play nice. Take a minute to review our Code of Conduct before submitting your post. Cancel Edit Create Fireteam Post

                        • 7 / 11 = Slurpees

                          Posting in language:

                           

                          Play nice. Take a minute to review our Code of Conduct before submitting your post. Cancel Edit Create Fireteam Post

                          1 Reply
                          • Let's say 1 equals a fgt. There can only be one OP. Do the math.

                            Posting in language:

                             

                            Play nice. Take a minute to review our Code of Conduct before submitting your post. Cancel Edit Create Fireteam Post

                            2 Replies
                            • Because 1=1 **Solved** **Drops phone, walks away in slow motion**

                              Posting in language:

                               

                              Play nice. Take a minute to review our Code of Conduct before submitting your post. Cancel Edit Create Fireteam Post

                              2 Replies
                              • Edited by Fujiion: 5/17/2016 7:00:03 PM
                                Let's say you have 2 Lego bricks of the same size and color (for example red 2x4 sized brick). Is one brick the same (equal) as the other? Yes, yes it is. SO, 1 brick is equal as the other. So in this case 1=1.

                                Posting in language:

                                 

                                Play nice. Take a minute to review our Code of Conduct before submitting your post. Cancel Edit Create Fireteam Post

                                3 Replies
                                • SyntaxError: can't assign to literal

                                  Posting in language:

                                   

                                  Play nice. Take a minute to review our Code of Conduct before submitting your post. Cancel Edit Create Fireteam Post

                                You are not allowed to view this content.
                                ;
                                preload icon
                                preload icon
                                preload icon