[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 6 KB, 147x109, content_x2_logo.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3026195 No.3026195 [Reply] [Original]

Mathematicians, I was toying with numbers the other night, and I found a pattern that I haven't noticed any time in the last 27 years. Using this pattern, I've come up w/ an equation that none of my professors have seen before. It seems to be possible that I've derived a new, unused equation. I emailed the Mathematics Dept Head at the University of Georgia to see what he thinks. But, in the meantime, I want all of you to test it out. Here's my equation/theorem:
X² = [ (X - 1)² - (X - 2)² ] + 2 + (X-1)²
This should work for all whole numbers >1

>> No.3026227

X² = X³/X
Behold!

>> No.3026224

>>3026195
it will work for numbers lower than 1 as well.
...but whats it used for?

>> No.3026241

>>3026227
lol, I emailed the dean. Somebody get the president on the line!

>> No.3026250

it actually works for all numbers on the complex plane. if you simply expand the square terms and then combine everything, you just get x^2=x^2. there's nothing new here that you've shown...

any qualified math professor should have been able to show you that in less than 5 mins. i guess theres a shred of truth in all the jokes going around GT that makes fun of UGA.

>> No.3026257

I haven't tried it out on negative numbers, but you asked the golden question... I don't know what, if anything, it could be used for. This is the first equation I've ever come up w/, so I don't really know what I'm doing. LOL

>> No.3026258

Nice Troll OP.

X² = X² - 2x + 1 - x² + 4x - 4 + 2 + x² - 2x + 1

>> No.3026267

This is a trivial equality.

Is this a troll thread?

>> No.3026289

Honestly not trying to troll. I get that it comes out to x² = x² ... the pattern I found showed that you can find the square of a number, use 6 for example, by taking the difference of the two previous squares (5 and 4). 25-16=9
9=2=11 ; 11=25=36

>> No.3026322

>>3026289
>11=25=36

well that doesn't look right.

>> No.3026332

>>3026289
Oh yeah, I see.
Kinda pointless though.

>> No.3026344

>>3026289
using simple algebraic relations, a whole host of other "equations" can be derived... for example:
x^2=[(x-1)^2 + (x+1)^2 - 2] / 2

honestly, i dont see what the big deal is here. you basically created a problem proof for an 8th grade algebra course. you just made a formula to square numbers, but it is likely more computationally intensive than just multiplying two numbers together.

>> No.3026354

go for it bro one time i discovered a thing

>> No.3026356

>>3026344
Now, if it were LESS intensive than just calculating X^2, you could write an efficient recursive algorithm for generating squares (if many of them are needed).

>> No.3026364

>>3026356

This function could solve the problem mathematicians are having with finding the squares of really large numbers. Expect new edition text books to devote a whole chapter to this.

>> No.3026365
File: 26 KB, 396x349, 1279169203621.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3026365

>>3026195
>older then 27

7th grade algebra

GTFO!

>> No.3026386

>>3026365
perhaps you've never heard of people studying to be 7th algebra teachers??

>> No.3026388
File: 15 KB, 400x320, facepalm2.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3026388

>>3026364
>>3026356
This is what happens when you don't take number theory. You get fucking retards thinking they "discovered" something, when all they have really done is prove how fucking little they know about math.

>> No.3026490

i think it's true, you should submit it to arxiv