[ 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: 3 KB, 115x126, 1340250042443.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4978017 No.4978017 [Reply] [Original]

3 > 2
> Multiply both sides by log(1/2)
3log(1/2) > 2log(1/2)
log(1/2)^3 > log(1/2)^2
log(1/8) > log(1/4)
1/8 > 1/4

>> No.4978024

>>4978017
Autist detected.

log (0.5) is negative, and when multiplying both sides of inequality by that negative number, you must switch the inequality sign.

>> No.4978028

log(a) is negative for 0<a<1

>> No.4978029

0/10

>> No.4978031

why? why the fuck do you people feel the need to come shit up the board? go to fucking /b/ or some shit if you want to troll, please, just fuck off.

>> No.4978032 [DELETED] 

I ask to you OP, what happens to an inequality when you multiply both sides of that inequality by a negative number (which is what log0.5 is). I hope I have allowed the feelings of shock portrayed in your image post to cease so that you may once again return to a normal life unplagued by these horrid but nonetheless fake revelations.

>> No.4978064

>>4978031
How is he trolling? He found a loophole in higher mathematics.

>> No.4978075

>>4978064
There's no loophole, log(1/2) is a negative number.
Fucking faggot, get the fuck out.
>>>/b/

>> No.4978088

>>4978075
Isn't log(x) > 0 always?

>> No.4978091

>>4978064

samefag detected

>> No.4978095

>>4978088
no, remember it's graph lies in the plan, so you convince yourself geometrically this is untrue. ln(x) isn't non negative until it hits 1, for values less than one and greater than 0 it is asymptotic to the y-axis, and ln(x)-->negative infinity as x-->0

>> No.4978100

>>4978095
>it's graph
>it's

>> No.4978130

2 > -3
Multiply both sides by -3
(2*-3) > (3*-3)
-6 > 9

MOTHER OF GOD

>> No.4978137

>>4978095
There is no such thing as a "geometric proof". Prove it rigorously or fuck off. I think you are a troll.

>> No.4978162

>>4978095

>calling the natural logarithm "ln"

>babbys first math attempt

>> No.4978378

>>4978137
I said you can convince yourself you fucking illiterate autist. The kid said he thought log was strictly positive so I was trying to describe the graph to him in words. You want to prove log(x) is negative for x in the open unit interval analytically? That's fucking trivial. Babby's first proof? Doesn't understand wog wules? Needs further clarification? fagget. 0/10

>> No.4978387

>>4978378
You can't prove it?
I would of expected at least a troll proof from you.
What a fail troll. I am disappoint.

>> No.4978403

>>4978387
what's there to prove? It's trivial if x is rational, I even said "doesn't understand wog wules." If x is non-rational it's more difficult and I had to appeal to complex variables. All the same, the rationals are dense in that interval and log is continuous, so that's plenty enough for this stupid thread and this stupid site. I am disappoint since you didn't even recognize the proof implicit in my taunt. What a nobody.

>> No.4978407

>>4978403
What is "wog wules"? I tried to google it but all I found were racist slurs.
Please understand that not everyone shares your private autism language. Translate into english please.

>> No.4978437

>>4978407
that's all you got? -10/10

>> No.4978446

>>4978407

You actually are kind of dumb.

>> No.4978459

>>4978437
>>4978446
Not trolling. I'm serious.

>> No.4978470

and btw your samefagging is obvious

>> No.4978479

This troll is starting to make me mad.
The term "wog wules" does not exist.

>> No.4979870

bump

Please anyone explain what "wog wules" means.

>> No.4979887
File: 73 KB, 400x541, 1323299170702.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4979887

>> No.4979912

>>4979870
Log rules.