[ 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: 9 KB, 540x668, target.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5018795 No.5018795[DELETED]  [Reply] [Original]

X + 17 = X

Find X.

Easy.

>> No.5018802

>X + 17 = X
Your equation is wrong.

>> No.5018808

17=0

>> No.5018815

x + 17 = x
1 + 17/x = 1
17/x = 0 => x = infinity

>> No.5018811

>>5018802
Nope. It's a syntactically and semantically correct equasion.

>> No.5018821

<div class="math">\mathbf{FALSE}</div>

>> No.5018823

There's no solution in the reals, while it's an indefinite equation in a cyclic additive group of order 17.

>> No.5018836

It's not a false equation. It's just inconsistent.

>> No.5018837

>>5018811

It isn't semantically correct it's a contradiction. There does not exist an X such that X + 17 = X. I mean, really think about this. If for all X, X = X + a, then all of the numbers would be the same. So that's basically what you're implying.

Unless you are one cheeky cunt and you want the equation to be modulo 17, 34, 51, ... all multiples of 17. In which case all X work.

You truly are one cheeky cunt OP.

>> No.5018848

>>5018837
It has no solution, so what? That's not the same as a contradiction. Equasions without solutions are still semantically correct. Go take a math course.

>> No.5018851

>>5018848
oh wait, i forgot that 17=0 is a contradiction. sorry, i'll go retake pre-calc now.

>> No.5018862

>>5018837
modulo 34, 51, etc. doesn't work.
And it is a correct equation with its set of solutions being empty. Think of it as intersecting two parallel lines.
That's not a semanticall incorrect problem, you just get that the lines don't intersect.

>> No.5018864

>>5018851
Full retard. Can't you into semantics? Well yeah, then YOU should totally go back into precalc.

>> No.5018875

>>5018864
Actually i should probably retake elementary English while i'm at it. don't know why i couldn't understand saying two different things are the same thing is a contradiction. Also, maybe a psychiatrist. don't know why i keep arguing with myself.

>> No.5018879

>>5018875
The equasion is semantically correct, you fucking cretin. It's set of solutions is the empty set, which is totally valid for an equasion. The moar you know, retard.

You don't know what the empty set is? Time to go to school, kid.

>> No.5018883
File: 541 KB, 400x300, clapclap.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5018883

ITT: Carl/10

>> No.5018890

>>5018879
Just because you can write some shit out and pretend it is an equation doesn't mean you are allowed to have false equations. All that semiotics bollocks doesn't even concern this here.

>> No.5018894

>>5018890
The equasion is not false. Can't you into reading comprehension? It describes the empty set. Are you ignorant of the empty set? Never heard of it? What shitty school are you attending?

>> No.5018899

>>5018894
Do you even know what an empty set is... I don't think you do you stupid fuck. Here's a 1:20 tutorial on it. Then come back to argue. Idiot.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ

>> No.5018905

x + 17 = x
1 + 17/x = 0
x = 0

>> No.5018903

>>5018879
no you idiot, it's not about the solution set. The equation basically says 17=0, which is a contradiction. For an intelligent individual, i sure am stupid.

>> No.5018904

>>5018899
lyl VIP quality

>> No.5018908

>>5018903
Are you saying the solution set is not empty? Go ahead and show me a solution, hun.

>> No.5018912

>>5018908
seriously, elementary English class. your reading comprehension sucks. The solution set has nothing to do with it. 17=0 is a contradiction.

>> No.5018914

>>5018912
That's why the solution set is empty, retard. Hence the solution set is well defined and therefore the equasion semantically correct.

>> No.5018915

>The equasion is not false. ... It describes the empty set.
...which is the definition of "false".

A valid answer can be obtained by changing the topology of the number line (mod 17, pt at infinity, etc) or changing the group/operator (a normal distribution plus a constant distribution is still a normal distribution).

But presenting the equation, OP, without hinting at one of the infinite possible options I described, is just stupid and annoying. sage.

>> No.5018916

>>5018915
>...which is the definition of "false".

Bullshit. "False" isn't defined for equasions.

>> No.5018922

>>5018914
>That's why the solution set is empty, retard
3 times now. it has nothing to do with the solution shit. the solution set could be empty, or infinity, or one number, or two, etc. doesn't mean 17=0 isn't a contradiction.

>> No.5018924

>>5018922
Nobody ever doubted it was a contradiction. Your lack of reading comprehension never fails to amuse me. Keep up the good retard work. Upvoted for comedy.

>> No.5018925
File: 229 KB, 1192x772, 1340351804456.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5018925

> X + 17 = X
> 17*((X/17) + 1) = X
> 17 = X / ((X+17)/17)
> 17 = 17*X / (X+17)
> 1 = X / (X+17)
> 1 = 1 + (X/17)
> 0 = X/17
> 0 = X
> X = 0

> UMADBRO?

>> No.5018926

>>5018924
>Nobody ever doubted it was a contradiction
>It has no solution, so what? That's not the same as a contradiction
lel. your stupidity is too great to pose as the most intelligent poster on /sci/. kindly drop the name.

>> No.5018927

>>5018926
>still doesn't know what an empty set is

Are you still in middle school?

>> No.5018928

>>5018879

>semantically correct implies always correct.

No. All it could possibly mean is the equation is valid, it doesn't mean the equation is sound. It's not even valid in real analysis as it contradicts at least one of its axioms. Silly rabbit.

Saying that its correct without giving a damn about what its content means (i.e. only semantically correct) is an empty statement at best.

>> No.5018931

>>5018928
>>semantically correct implies always correct.
Who are you quoting?

> it contradicts at least one of its axioms
Which axiom? You're pulling shit out of your ass. I bet you don't even know any axioms.

>> No.5018932

How the fuck do you guys manage to find something to argue about in every one of these threads?

>> No.5018933

>>5018925
> 1 = X / (X+17)
> 1 = 1 + (X/17)
your algebra skills are horrible.

>> No.5018935

>>5018927
>gets corrected
>tries to backpedal
lel. just drop the name. You're not smart enough to pose as me.

>> No.5018938

>>5018935
I'm way smarter than you, bitch. Take your lame trolling attempts back to where you come from. Maybe you're mom falls for this shit, but not me.

>> No.5018940

>>5018935
>>5018926
>>5018904
lel

>> No.5018942

>>5018933
Have you ever heard of Clapperman Disordination?

>> No.5018945

>>5018938
>smarter than me
>couldn't win a simply argument
stay mad inferior scum.

>> No.5018950

x = ∞

>> No.5018951

>>5018945
What a pleb. U got 0wn3d by d1k. #YOLO #SWAG

>> No.5018953

>>5018942
your work implied X / (X+17) = 1 + (X/17). it is not, just plug in any number like say, 2, for x. hence, your algebra is horrible.

>> No.5018955

>>5018951
>proven wrong
>resorts to insults and shitposting
i'll just add this to my number of internet arguments won and take my leave now.

>> No.5018958

>>5018955
If you stopped crying for a moment, you could hear your dad say come back to bed, gaylord.

>> No.5018966

>>5018931

It could violate at least one of several, depending on how you frame the original question. The obvious one is the axiom of equality:

x = x

of course, you could sidestep that one by defining your system such that 17 is identical to 0, and you wouldn't contradict that axiom.

But then again, you ought to state that explicitly, else its acceptable to drop any term into any equation nearly anywhere you want as long as its semantically correct. If its not acceptable to do that, you need to describe a qualifier, and you don't have one.

>> No.5018968

>>5018966
Partially true, but totally unrelated. Do you even read? Do you have any idea what the thread is about?

>> No.5018972

>>5018968

My statement stands. It could be unrelated, or you could simply be misunderstanding what I said. Which is it? Show your proof.

>> No.5018974

>>5018972
Proof for what? Is this a strawman?

>> No.5018976

>>5018974

>Is this a strawman.

I see what you did there.

My statement stands. It could be unrelated, or you could simply be misunderstanding what I said. Which is it?

Smartass.

>> No.5018979

>>5018976
I told you it's unrelated. lrn2read

>> No.5018984

>>5018979

It is not unrelated.

See? I can make bare assertions too.

>> No.5018989

>>5018795
Quite obviously, x = N_0

N_0 + 17 = N_0

>> No.5018993

>>5018984
True dat. The difference is that your assertion is wrong.

>> No.5018995

>>5018993

No. The difference is that your assertion is wrong.

We can do this all day.

>> No.5019001

>>5018837
>>5018837
aware?

>> No.5019005

>>5018995
We can indeed do this all day and at the end of the day I'm still right and you're wrong.

>> No.5019009

ITT: Carl does not shut up, despite knowing that even if correct no one on /sci/ will ever take him seriously.

>> No.5019010

>>5018815

The more you approach infinity, the deeper you penetrate terror

>> No.5019011

>>5019005

No, I am right, you are wrong.

>> No.5019013

>>5019011
Incorrect. I proved you wrong.

>> No.5019015

>>5019009
Yeah, I know it's disgusting how /sci/ dismisses correct answers because of emotional reasons.

>> No.5019019

>>5019013

Ahh here we go.
Thats what I want you to do, but you have not done it yet. You haven't shown where I was wrong. Please do so that we can move on.

>> No.5019021

>>5019009
>>5019015
he wouldn't shut up even if proven wrong.
>>5018914
>>5018922
>>5018924
>>5018926
>>5018927
>>5018935

>> No.5019022

>>5019019
I did. Read le thread. I'm not gonna post it again.

>> No.5019024

>>5019015
Well, hating you and your endless trolling is a pretty good reason to dismiss you outright. But soft, I can hear the errant breeze whispering 'are you jelly because I schooled you in science' so I shall exit this thread before you turn your trolling eyes upon me.

Verily, Shut up Carl.

>> No.5019027

>>5019021
That was the wrong Carl. I proved him wrong and he did shut up.

>> No.5019028

>>5019024
>can't deal with being corrected
>reacts emotionally distressed

Why are you on /sci/?

>> No.5019029

>>5019022

You did not. In fact, you flatly dismissed my criticism.

>>5018966
my first post

>>5018968
your response

>> No.5019031

>>5019029
You posted an unrelated strawman and I pointed out the fact that you did so. Back on topic please.

>> No.5019032

>>5019027
oh yeah, i missed it cause they were both carls. clearly the imposter was the one who thought it wasn't a contradiction (but then later said that it was, then changed his answer yet again the post right after that).

>> No.5019035

real carl here
>>5019028
oh the irony >>5018938

>> No.5019033

>>5019032
Nobody ever said it wasn't a contradiction. Just it being a contradiction is irrelevant to its semantical validity. It is a valid description of the empty set.

>> No.5019039

>>5019035
Everyone who calls himself "real Carl" is not the real Carl.

>> No.5019036

>>5019031

It is not an unrelated strawman.

Wanna do this again? You don't learn too quick do you?

>> No.5019040

>>5019033
>Nobody ever said it wasn't a contradiction
except you did. do i need to quote you again? you realize posts are still on this page right? stay mad impostor.

>> No.5019041

>ITT: people don't realize we are the only ones who talk with Carl nor even his mom talk with him.

>> No.5019042

>>5019036
It is. I explained it multiple times and I'm not gonna repeat myself. Try harder.

>> No.5019043

>>5019040
I didn't. Go ahead and quote your own posts, troll, trying to attribute them to me.

>> No.5019044

>>5019039
false because i am the real carl. irrelevant because your post was still ironic.

>> No.5019045

>>5019042

You did not and you never explained it. Try harder

>> No.5019050

>>5019043
this is just pathethic. now you're going to try to claim it was someone else making that post? strange that you didn't point that out when i responded to it and instead continued arguing like it was your own. give it up pleb, you're dealing with a superior individual.

>> No.5019051

>>5019045
Denial is futile. Just admit you were wrong.

>> No.5019056

>>5019050
Quote whatever you want. I'm sure the poster's name is Carl. That's you, isn't it?

>> No.5019059

>>5019051

I think you are the one who needs to admit they're wrong.

>> No.5019062

>>5019059
Well you think wrong. Maybe thinking isn't your strong suit.

>> No.5019063

Can we get like two or three more Carls in here? This is absolutely hilarious to the outside observer.

>> No.5019065

>>5019056
Definitely. but are you denying the existence of impostors now? that particular impostor was you. If it wasn't, then answer the question in my last post. Why didn't you say so then but instead continued to argue for it?

>> No.5019066

>>5019062

Funny, I could say the same thing about you.

In all this time you've spent in this pissing match, you could have easily typed a couple sentences showing where I was wrong, and I would have kindly fucked-off. But you can't seem to do that.

>> No.5019067

>>5019065
Continued to argue over what, imposter Carl? You were arguing with yourself.

>> No.5019068

-17

>> No.5019070

>>5019066
You weren't wrong, just unrelated. You posted an unnecessary strawman.

>> No.5019077

No, you just failed to understand his statement and immediately closed your eyes, plugged your ears, and yelled 'lalala its a strawman lalala'.

Are you trying to ruin my reputation or something?

>> No.5019078

>>5019070

It was not unrelated. Why was it unrelated?

>> No.5019080

>>5019077
Hello Carl.

>>5019078
Because it was lacking a logical or causal relation to the topic of discussion.

>> No.5019082

>>5019067
yes, i was in fact arguing with myself. i think it helps build your rhetorical skills. I think we all know which of my sides was retarded though. Of course I'd never seriously claim it wasn't a contradiction. Which leads me to my next question, why are you so mad over my own arguments? and why do you continue to use my identity?

>> No.5019085

I don't know if you have AI, Carl, that means it, it is you and you are it. You see, you are stuck in the following loop:


for(int post = 0; Carl; ++post){
counterCarl();
}

There is no end until you end.

>> No.5019089

>>5019080

It did not lack a logical or causal relation to the discussion.

>> No.5019093

>>5019082
Please prove that I'm mad. This is an extraordinary claim and thus requires extraordinary evidence. Until you proved it, my jimmies will remain unrustled.

>>5019085
What layman cretin wrote this loop? It'll never end.

>>5019089
Yes, it did.

>> No.5019095

>>5019093

No it did not.

>> No.5019099

>>5019095
Prove it.

>> No.5019109

>>5019093
>Please prove that I'm mad. This is an extraordinary claim and thus requires extraordinary evidence. Until you proved it, my jimmies will remain unrustled
burden of proof is on you to prove you are not mad. isn't that what you told EK? is consistency too much to ask from you?

>> No.5019113

>>5019109
I am not EK. That means burden of proof is on you.

>> No.5019114

>>5019099

No, I was asking you to prove it instead of flatly dismissing it.

You aren't going to get around this.

>> No.5019117

>>5019099
He doesn't need to. You're the one that made the original claim that his post was off topic, so it falls on you to explain why/prove that it is.

>> No.5019120

>>5019114
I don't need to prove anything to you. You lose.

>> No.5019121

>>5019114
Your burden of proof, not mine.

>> No.5019124

>>5019117
But that would be responding to a strawman.

>> No.5019126

>>5019117
You fail.

>> No.5019130

>>5019113
ah but the burden of proof was not on EK simply for her being EK, it was due to her situation. The same situation you are in now. now you're showing your failure in basic logic, this is like your resume of stupidity. and you still haven't proved you're not mad.

>> No.5019133

>>5019130
I'm not in the same situation, because apparently I am not EK. Can't you into logic?

>> No.5019135

>>5019121
>>5019120

No I think the burden is on you. You made a positive statement: my post is unrelated to the discussion. I hold the null hypothesis, that the topic is not unrelated to the discussion.

>> No.5019136

>>5019124
You don't know what a strawman actually is, do you?

Oh shit wait this is what that guy posted in the one cute science thread. The old Carl-bot. You sifted through responses a guy made until you found one to call a fallacy (even though it isn't), and now you just use it to discredit every claim a person makes.

Shit guys, we fell for Carl-bot mode two: Incorrect fallacy.

>> No.5019142 [DELETED] 

You never specified the field.
Let <span class="math">\mathbb{F}=\frac{\mathbb{Z}}{p\mathbb{Z}} <span class="math"> for p = 17. Then your solution is every every number contained in F.[/spoiler][/spoiler]

>> No.5019145

>>5019135
I will not respond to strawmen. Make an on topic contribution and we can talk.

>>5019136
Is there a name for the fallacy of accusing the other person of being a troll bot? We could call it ad hominem, but I think it deserves its own name.

>> No.5019147

>>5019145

My post was not a strawman, it was on topic.

>> No.5019149

You never specified a field.

Let <span class="math">\mathbb{F} = \mathbb{Z}\,mod\,p\mathbb{Z} [/spoiler] for p=17. Then the solution is every element inside of F.

>> No.5019152

>>5019147
Keep telling that to yourself.

>> No.5019153

It appears the bot has begun making demands of us giving it a name. Indicative perhaps of some form of independent intelligence. But independent of what? I am unsure.

>> No.5019156

>>5019149

Except 0, of course.

>> No.5019158

>>5019152

Oh I will until you can show otherwise.

>> No.5019161

>>5019153
PS. Forgot to sage.

>> No.5019165

>>5019156
5 star post

>>5019158
No, it's fine. I now arguing with someone delusional is pointless. I could show you all the evidence and you'd still deny it.

>> No.5019166

>>5019158
There is no real basis for this claim.

>> No.5019168

>>5019133
but it is. the only difference between the two is that she is EK and you are not. How does the identity of a person change burden of proof for any statement? this is an extremely poor attempt to save face btw, and you are still very mad.

>> No.5019173

>>5019166

You have no real basis for your claim.

>> No.5019175

>>5019168
I got 99 jimmies and your post rustled none.

>> No.5019177

>>5019173
Repetition is the mother of invention.

>> No.5019183

>>5019165

How do you know I am delusional? You didn't even run a single test; a single reason why my claim was unrelated and yet you somehow know that its futile to reason with me?

>> No.5019187

>>5019175
on the contrary, you have 99 things unrustled but your jimmies ain't one.

>> No.5019189

>>5019177

Bare assertions have gotten us nowhere on this topic.

>> No.5019190

>>5019183
You keep insisting in something wrong, even after I showed you the disproving evidence. Pretty much the definition of delusional.

>> No.5019196

>>5019187
Boring.

>>5019189
Exactly. That's why I told you to stop making them.

>> No.5019197

>>5019190

>even after I showed you the disproving evidence

Nowhere in this thread have you done this unless what you are referring to are the endless streams of bare assertions and flat dismissals that you shat out.

>> No.5019201

>>5019196

Ahh good, so now that you know bare assertions are futile, why not back up this claim you made?

>>5018968

>> No.5019202

>>5019197
Read the thread again. You clearly missed some important posts.

>> No.5019205

>>5019201
Incorrect.

>> No.5019206

>>5019201
Why should I respond to strawmen? Tell me how your post was related. Spoiler: It wasn't.

>> No.5019208

This experiment has gone terribly wrong. It appears to have multiplied into at least 2 threads. While one retains the highly emotional yet systematic irrationalism, the other, quite contrary, has resorted to what seems to be the method of copying pasta (or replication to the more scientifically inclined) from random pseudo-scientific articles. We can tell this from the sharp differences in interpunctuation and general tonality. To what this leads. I am unsure.

>> No.5019221

>>5019196
boring or not, it's da truf. you were proven wrong, lost a different argument as well, and now your jimmies are rustled.

>> No.5019222

>>5019221
I don't even have jimmies. Apes have jimmies. Prove me wrong.

>> No.5019225

>>5019222
You're not the real Carl. I am.

>> No.5019226

>>5019221
Come on, hun. You know you're wrong. (-_-)zzz

>> No.5019230

>>5019208
This is ridiculous.

>> No.5019238

>>5019206
>>5019205
>>5019202

Oh wow. I have to hand it to you other two, you replicated Carl quite flawlessly. That is good enough for me.

I'll drop the act: I never really cared about my original question that much, I just wanted to see how long it would take before Carl realized that bare assertions were useless, even if addressed to statements he deems "unrelated". Over the course of an hour and a half, he still didn't learn. Take from that what you will, /sci/.

>> No.5019239

>>5019230
I'm glad you are amused Carl, would you now please stop shitposting?

>> No.5019242

>>5019222
your jimmies are rustled, this is just a fact. your jimmies must exist for them to be in a state of "rustled". therefore, you have jimmies.
>>5019226
but i actually know i'm right. in fact, two times i've proven you wrong in just this thread. stay mad though, if you want.

>> No.5019254

>>5019238
The most pathetic backpedalling I've seen today.

>>5019242
But I'm not an ape.

>> No.5019260
File: 363 KB, 576x432, dtgd.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5019260

isn't X = infinite

>> No.5019263

>>5019225
Stop pretending.

>> No.5019269

>>5019254
>The most pathetic backpedalling I've seen today
that irony again.
>But i'm not an ape
doesn't matter, your jimmies are still rustled. stay mad

>> No.5019277

>>5019269
Still boring. Get a life.

>> No.5019287

>>5019277
i couldn't be posting if i didn't have a life now could i? i've added many strikes to my wins chalkboard just from this thread. thank you.

>> No.5019293

>>5019287
All your wins can be summed up on one chalk board? Pleb.

>> No.5019302

>>5019293
i guess you fail at notation aswell? one symbol can represent any arbitrarily large number. thanks yet another one.

>> No.5019308

>>5019302
trying too hard

>> No.5019312

>>5019308
how does that mean anything? you're not applying yourself enough. +1 to me

>> No.5019314

>>5019312
The notion that you are even trying is slightly amusing and at the same time morbidly fascinating. You cannot win.

>> No.5019321

>>5019314
but i've already won. more than once. your point is moot.

>> No.5019328

Strange. It has developed a fascination with games of counting. I have vague memories of analogous behaviour in the species chimpanzee amongst their younger ones. But never with such passion. Unusual. I am unsure.

>> No.5019341

I'm just disappointed OP didn't use a different X-alike character (e.g., capital Greek chi or Cyrillic khe) for one of the two Xs.

>> No.5019344

>>5019328
you seem to be unsure about even the simplest things. you are a useless scientist.

>> No.5019351

>>5019321
Christopher Poole is an American internet entrepreneur from New York City, noted for founding the websites 4chan and Canvas.
He originally started 4chan anonymously, under the pseudonym moot (always written with lower case).

In 2008, Leopoldo Godoy of Brazilian TV Globo called Poole's 4chan "the ground zero of Western web culture." In April 2009, Poole was voted the world's most influential person of 2008 by an open Internet poll conducted by Time magazine.

>> No.5019353

December 10-13, 2012 | Abu Dhabi. Black Hat Abu Dhabi News. Black Hat Abu Dhabi 2012 CFP is now open | more info; Review Black Hat Abu Dhabi 2011 ...

>> No.5019372

x + 17 = x
x - x + 17 = 0
x - x = -17
x*(1-1) = -17
x*0 = -17
x= -17/0
x = 0

>> No.5019389

>>5019372
Nice division with 0 there.

>> No.5019390

this is why /sci/ is one of the worst boards

>> No.5019398
File: 7 KB, 350x350, internet-marketing.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5019398

>Black Hat Abu Dhabi