 |
 |
 |
 |
Informed Consent
10 Jan 2009, 4:04 AM GMT
You are
Main page
Help&About
Donate!
Web Boards -
Discussions about BDSM and IC
Help forum
Weblogs -
Including
write-ups
and
groups
UK map -
Local topics
Chatrooms -
Talk live to other people
UK listings - including:
Event Dates,
Clubs,
Munches,
Groups,
Websites,
Services,
Shops -
Other countries
Dictionary -
BDSM,
Fetish,
etc
The Mistress Index
Personal Ads -
including UK
M4f,
M4m,
F4m,
F4f,
m4F,
m4M,
f4M,
f4F
The BDSM Book List,
Seek Discipline!,
The Slave Register,
BDSM in Manchester,
International Fetish
Day
|
|
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
IC : Weblogs : spirifer : "Spooky maths jiggerypokery"
Spooky maths jiggerypokery (8)
spirifer's profile
Posted by spirifer on Wed 5 Nov 08, 6:27 PM
|
Maths that lies oh come on...
Let a = b
Multiply both sides by a giving
aa = ab
Then add aa - 2ab to both sides giving
aa + aa - 2ab = ab + aa - 2ab
This can be simplified to
2(aa - ab) = aa - ab
Finally divide by aa - ab and we get
2 = 1
|
This old chestnut came up in a thread on lies and statistics today. At fist sight it appears really persuasive and proof indeed that you can prove pretty much anything with a bit of mathematical jiggerypokery.
However, a bit of scribbling on bits of paper (and a little googling, admittedly) shows that the apparent division by (aa - ab) at the penultimate stage is in fact division by zero, since aa = ab. Division by zero is an undefined term, mathematically, apparently, and as such does not have a meaningful, sensible, or unambiguous value.
You learn something new, and not just BDSM related, on IC every day!
Replies
5 Nov 08, 6:34 PM xjames UK(SS), 2 yrs  |
I can easily prove that there is no solution where n>2 to the equation x^n+y^n=z^n . Sadly there's not enough room in this box to fit it in. Obligatory wanky Latin tagline: Neque porro quisquam est qui dolorem ipsum quia dolor sit amet, consectetur, adipisci velit
|
5 Nov 08, 6:35 PM futurelife UK, 13 mths  |
Hmmm! Lost me on the second line. Then algebra was never my strong point.However never have any trouble counting out the strokes,lol |
5 Nov 08, 11:17 PM mq1965 UK(DA), 5 yrs
|
xjames wrote:
I can easily prove that there is no solution where n>2 to the equation x^n+y^n=z^n . Sadly there's not enough room in this box to fit it in.
|
Thank you Mr. Fermat. |
6 Nov 08, 12:19 AM bohnanza UK(FK), 9 yrs Y!
|
mq1965 wrote:
xjames wrote:
I can easily prove that there is no solution where n>2 to the equation x^n+y^n=z^n . Sadly there's not enough room in this box to fit it in.
|
Thank you Mr. Fermat.
|
I think your thanks should be aimed at Andrew Wiles. Science, the only religion that works even if you don't believe in it.
Women wanted, preferably with their own Rohypnol.
|
6 Nov 08, 7:01 AM Priapuss UK(PO), 17 mths 
|
Bottom x flogger =  Today's the tomorrow you worried about yesterday. - Faith
is a certainty without evidence-trust is empirical.
www.GiftsLine.com/acatalog/Made_to_Measure.html - Discreet & Confidential Picture Framing with Vanilla gifts for vanilla people.
|
6 Nov 08, 10:02 AM Backdooruk UK(BA), 9 yrs
|
spirifer wrote:
This old chestnut came up in a thread on lies and statistics today. |
Almost all issues with statistics involve people making mathematical mistakes. Statistics aren't scary because you can make them say anything (you can't) but because so many people use them while making such errors without realizing that they do.
- Chris
Anyone with a brain is manipulable. Only the truly unimaginative are difficult to control.
|
6 Nov 08, 10:19 AM mq1965 UK(DA), 5 yrs
|
bohnanza wrote:
mq1965 wrote:
xjames wrote:
I can easily prove that there is no solution where n>2 to the equation x^n+y^n=z^n . Sadly there's not enough room in this box to fit it in.
|
Thank you Mr. Fermat.
|
I think your thanks should be aimed at Andrew Wiles.
|
I don't think Mr. Wiles would ever claim that he could 'easily prove' the theorem, which was, if not quite in those words, what Fermat claimed.
I seem to remember seeing a documentary about Wiles efforts to prove it, and it was far from simple. Even then he got it wrong the first time, and later had to revise his proof, though it was so complicated that no one else spotted his mistake the first time.
|
6 Nov 08, 5:27 PM ropeburn BE, 7 yrs
|
No elephant got hurt in the posting either  |
|
|
 |
 |
 |
|