this post was submitted on 22 Jan 2024
1 points (100.0% liked)

Math Memes

1506 readers
1 users here now

Memes related to mathematics.

Rules:
1: Memes must be related to mathematics in some way.
2: No bigotry of any kind.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
top 34 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 0 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

Right there:

[–] [email protected] 0 points 9 months ago

I know we're supposed to assume x is a real number, but this could be true if x is a sinusoidal waveform with period = 4. The question didn't specify the range or what set of numbers on which x is defined.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 9 months ago (1 children)

x + 2 = x - 2

I found x, twice even. EZ

[–] [email protected] 0 points 9 months ago

That is probably the most correct answer.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 9 months ago (1 children)

I find this meme and this comment section distressing. Y’all are bad at basic algebra.

Carry on, I guess.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 9 months ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 0 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Subtract x from both sides of the equation. You get 2 = -2 which is incorrect and nonsensical.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

I know that, but @[email protected] said that most of us here are bad at basic algebra. Not that I'm great at it (I had an 8 average in all 4 maths in uni), but I do believe that most of us here were correct. This is unsolvable using classic algebra.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Clearly X= |2> + |-2> 😅

[–] [email protected] 0 points 9 months ago

⬆️ this poster didn't normalize their linear combination of wave functions

[–] [email protected] 0 points 9 months ago

2 = -2, easy

[–] [email protected] 0 points 9 months ago
[–] [email protected] 0 points 9 months ago (3 children)

Can someone smart explain it to dumb me

[–] [email protected] 0 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

It’s not solvable using traditional algebra.

Typically you would try to get all of the variables on one side, and all of the numbers on the other.

So in this instance, you’d start by moving them around to get things together:
x+2 = x-2
x+2-x = -2
x-x = -2-2

But then you simplify, and cancel out any variables that need to be cancelled. In this case we see “x-x” so that cancels out to 0. And we see -2-2 which simplifies into -4. So the end result is:

0=-4

Which is obviously a nonsense answer. In the original post, homeslice did the first step wrong, moved everything over to the left incorrectly, (inadvertently setting the whole equation equal to 0) and the whole thing was downhill from there; Since the first step of their solution was wrong, everything behind it was also wrong.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 9 months ago (1 children)

You know how you sometimes make a mistake in one line, but after doing a few lines, you go back to actually writing the equation correctly? Happened to me all the time in uni. It's basically because you were thinking of doing the next line or whatever, and you just forgot that a var or const was somewhere in there, or you just didn't copy (or copy it correctly) in the next line, but the memory of that var/const remained in your brain, so after doing a few lines, the equation is now simple enough so your brain knows something should be there, but it's missing. Sure, we almost always caught up with the mistake, go back, correct the last few lines and carry on. But, every once in a while, you don't, and you carry on solving the equation, and you get a correct solution, but from a purely mathematical standpoint, yes, that solution is not correct.

My math proffesor in uni had an interesting take on this. He said, you didn't do 1 mistake and then correct it to get the right answer, but you actually made 2... which is worse... according to him. And I have to say, at that time, I didn't agree, but let's be honest... he is correct. So, he went a lot harder on those students that did this type of mistake than the ones that just made 1 and carried on solving the equation like nothing happened.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 8 months ago (1 children)

nah... its still just one error: that of transcribing your process.

it's like a cosmic ray randomly changed a digit in the memory cells that hold the stringbuffer prepared to be printed.

and then the computation carries on with the internal representation of the whole process still with correct data.

i understand your profs pov though

[–] [email protected] 0 points 8 months ago (1 children)

From an engineering standpoint, I don't agree with him. We make errors all the time, it's basically how we learn how to do things the right way (try, fail, repeat). Not to mention rounding errors, we also make GIGANTIC ones (not all the time, but still).

But, he's a mathematician, not an engineer. So, as I said, from a purely mathematical standpoint, yes, he is correct.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 8 months ago

well, yeah... xD as i said, i understand that pov. if that printout WAS the process, then yes.

and for an alien that only receives that printout milled into a goldbar attached to a satellite: that would be a bummer ;3

[–] [email protected] 0 points 9 months ago (2 children)

Almost everything is wrong in his answer.

The correct answer is, it's unsolvable.

X + 2 = X - 2

X - X = - 2 - 2

0 = - 4

[–] [email protected] 0 points 9 months ago

The real correct answer is that it only works mod 4

[–] [email protected] 0 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Only the first step is wrong.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

Yeah, my bad 👍.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (2 children)

Explanation: How did they get from

x + 2 = x - 2

to

(x+2)(x-2)=0?

That's not a valid step.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

they start off with S' though... looks like they pretended to try to derive?

[–] [email protected] 0 points 8 months ago (1 children)

I thought that was their profile name

[–] [email protected] 0 points 8 months ago

oh fuck me, you seem to be correct

[–] [email protected] 0 points 9 months ago (1 children)

To further clarify,

(x+2)(x-2) means to take the result of X+2 and times it with the result of x-2.

While it is common in algebra to bring the other side over, in order to simplify it, this isn't how you'd do it.

Here, you'd either cancel out the X (by removing it on both sides) or the -2 (by adding 2 to both sides) over to make 2=-2 or X+4=X respectively, which are both nonsense equations.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 9 months ago (1 children)

and times it with the result

and multiply it with the result

[–] [email protected] 0 points 9 months ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 0 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Not really, no… “times” is not a verb. You can multiply 2 by 2, and you can express that as “2 times 2”, but it is not correct to “times 2 by 2”.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 9 months ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 0 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Not sure what you think the relevance of a Spanish-English translation of the word “multiplying” has here… but nonetheless, you can see the correct usage of the word “multiply” versus the word “times” in my explanation above. For further clarification I would suggest a real dictionary, like Oxford, Meriam-Webster, etc.

I’m sure plenty of people will continue to make the mistake and it will become an accepted variant, though I wouldn’t consider it to be the correct usage of the word. Similar to the word “irregardless”, it’s a word, it’s used incorrectly in place of “regardless” very often, and therefore is an accepted variant. It’s just not the correct word to use. This is why I offered you my initial correction.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Not sure what you think the relevance of a Spanish-English translation of the word “multiplying” has here

It's a more authoritative answer than a random comment by a grammar nazi.

Also the dictionaries you mentioned aren't great about including common informal language, which is what 'times by' is.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 9 months ago

Yes I’m sure those at Oxford and MW could learn a thing or two from wordreference.com’s Spanish translation, which made the same mistake you did.

Thanks for calling me a nazi though, during otherwise polite conversation… have a good one.