I don't know who is the first person to start this NOT mathematically sound joke:
Study = no fail
no study = fail
study + no study = fail + no fail
study (1+no) = fail (1+no)
study = fail
The joke is a fail!
First at sight, wow, what a amazing proof. But really, not so...
"no" could be -1
and there is a lot evidence support no is -1
yes correspond to true, which in turn can be expressed by 1
no is the negation of yes. so it's likely be -1
if it's -1, the result is NOT true, because (no+1) = 0
if ab = ac, b=c only if a does not equal to 0
division by zero... that's fail!
What does this mean? study and fail have no relationship? nope, this means study = -fail. so, actually, the real answer for the study = fail proof should be.
|study| = |fail|
so if I absolutely study, I will absolutely fail.
Here is the new proof if you like to show off to your friends.
study = no fail
no study = fail
if no does not equal to -1.
study + no study = fail + no fail
study (1+no) = fail (1+no)
study = fail
if no does equal -1
study = -1*fail
study = -fail
thus
|study| = |fail|
A special case, no = 0. Which makes study = fail and -fail. in that case, study = 0, study=nothing. and thing can be any number, like the definition of "thing" in english. That's Zen.
btw... if no equals everything but 1 or -1, study = fail = 0... I just make that special case so it sounds nice...
read the comment to see how I arrive that.
Some other note. It is ok to divide by zero in some sets. For example, the real projective line. But still, study = fail can't be observed. Since a/0 = unsigned infinity in real projective line.
Bookmark/Search this post with:
.
This is also wrong - it
This is also wrong - it mixes boolean mathematics with standard maths, great u show off though... O_o
how is this... also
how is this... also wrong?
it doesn't have boolean mathematics involved. no is just a normal variable, doesn't mean 0 or something.
oh... wait... if no = 0... a whole new meaning!!!
!A = B A = !B That is what I
!A = B
A = !B
That is what I mean. If 'no' was a variable then we'd have
A = no * B
A/no = B
which is not the case. And in the second part is back to standard maths.
It's just a joke, don't try to make sense out of it. Albeit not correct... Sometimes you just have to let go, which I apparently am not a good example of :)
well, in the original joke,
well, in the original joke, no was treated as a number.
it is a set of linear equations.
study = no fail
no study = fail
let x = no
a = study
b = fail
substitute
a = xb
xa = b
manipulate until x is on one side
x = b/a (when a doesn't equal 0)
x = a/b (when b doesn't equal 0)
as we can see, the solution for this must be a=b or a=-b (a,b != 0)
and solution of x is either 1 or -1.
x can also be zero when a and b are both zero
study = fail is just one of the relations, actually there is an exact number for study and fail when no is anything else but -1, or 1.
when no = 1. study = fail and study can be any number
when no = -1. study = -fail and study can be any number
when no = anything else, study = fail = 0.
(ax = b and bx = a, x = all real but 1, or -1, then a, b must be 0 when they are in the domain or reals, it's easy to see that on a graph. Don't know if it works on complex numbers, I have to do some research.)
|study|=|fail| is not wrong.
Jokes doesn't have to have sense. I laughed at this joke and found it funny, but it's a math joke, I have to be rigours on this type of stuff.
this no doesn't mean not xD.
i was just thinking...
....that maybe YOU'RE NOT A MATHEMATICALLY CORRECT JOKE!
just kidding
thanks for stopping by and for the comment.
when i get my phd in math, i'll probably agree with you.
for now, i'll stick with making lame jokes and laughing at things that i think are funny.
...like "poop." hehe....poop.....
ps- very cool site
OMG, when I saw those cap
OMG, when I saw those cap text I got scared that I'm not mathematically correct... I might have to prove mine consistency...
)
thx.
My blog runs on Drupal. (and the blood of little children
The actual fallacy,
The actual fallacy, interpreting "no" as the boolean operator ! (which makes a lot more sense), is in the cancellation of the operators:
S = !F (by assumption)
!S = F (correct)
S + !S = F + !F (correct)
(I+!)S = (I+!)F (where I is the identity; correct)
S = F (incorrect)
Notice the similar (but more familiar) fallacy here:
d(x^2 + 1)/dx = d(x^2 + 2)/dx
d/dx (x^2 + 1) = d/dx (x^2 + 2)
x^2 + 1 = x^2 + 2
1 = 2
The joke treat "no" as a
The joke treat "no" as a real number...
But we can assume "no" is !... and amazingly... it works as a great way to demonstrate fallacy..
Another point: You cannot
Another point: You cannot assume that it is commutative. i.e (1+no) does not necessarily equal (no+1)
ie study + no study = no fail + fail
study (1+no) = fail (no+1)
... right... but a field is
...
right... but a field is the usual assumption if it's not specified what kind of algebra construction it is...
can the "no" be 0.51 or
can the "no" be 0.51 or 0.49?
yes. Doesn't make any
yes. Doesn't make any different to what I said.
Wow.
I love how you guys take an innocent joke, and then rape the living fuck out of it by correcting the maths of it.
Bravo.
It's about mathematical
It's about mathematical correctness. Just like political correctness, but much more important.
If there are more innocent make jokes that are mathematically wrong, there will be people rape the living fuck out of it. I will make sure I'm one of the first. That's a promise you can count on.
For your consideration, I
For your consideration, I present a rebuttal
study=nofail
nostudy=fail
nofail=pass
fail=nopass
study+nostudy=nofail+nofail
study+nostudy=pass+nopass
study(no+1)=pass(no+1)
study=pass
if no fail is equal to
if no fail is equal to -fail, -fail is equal to succes
you said it yourself that a minus gives the opposite
so the opposite of fail is succes
you just can't trick math
Post new comment