Mathematics

The simplest thing in the world. You do not need to understand unpredictable, Mind Screw crap like human emotions. All you need is your logic, your creativity, and your formulas. Sure, stuff like proofs require some out-of-the-box thinking, but when you get in the groove, it all follows a natural, predictable progression and plenty of problems are self-verifying.

inb4imaginarynumbersandquantumtheory

You got flamed.

Imaginary numbers are merely an extra element in the system. They still follow a similar pattern.

Quantum theory is physics, not mathematics.

edited 30th Sep '10 6:26:18 PM by Cliche

^ Could you mention the second part too to verify my prediction?

You got flamed.

LOGS! FRACTIONS! RADIANS! KEEP THEM AWAY FROM ME!

Charlie Tunoku is a lover and a fighter.

I remember reading a mathematician(it might have been Gauss) saying that things would have been better had "imaginary numbers" instead been called "lateral numbers".

As for quantum physics, it isn't actually that bad, just counterintuitive.

the future we had hoped for

1. Let p be any finite set of prime numbers.
2. Let P be the product of all elements of p.
3. Let Q be P plus one.
4. If Q is prime, p does not include all prime numbers. (Q is of course larger than any element of p.)
5. If Q is composite, some factor r exists.
6. r cannot be a member of p, since no natural number but one is a factor of both a number and that number plus one, and one isn't prime.
7. Therefore p cannot include all prime numbers.
8. Therefore no finite set can include all prime numbers.
9. Therefore~

Probably. A lot of terminology is terrible everywhere. -_- Yay symbols?

edited 30th Sep '10 7:01:01 PM by Tzetze

[1] This facsimile operated in part by synAC.

Assuming 1 = 2:

2 = 4

You got flamed.

http://www.toothpastefordinner.com/092210/sports-math-art.gif

(I like all three ._.)

edited 30th Sep '10 7:02:39 PM by Longfellow

It Just Bugs Me

@OP: This. So much.

...what? I understand that that's supposed to be one of those trick proofs, and I only have a less-than-junior high school education (don't feel like revealing my exact age), but that seems rather off.

Whatcha gonna do, little buckaroo? | i be pimpin' madoka fics

Mathematics is almost like... wizardry to me. Thematically, I think there are a lot of similarities.

I guess that could make language sorcery?

Ruining everything forever.

^^ No, it's correct.

edited 30th Sep '10 10:29:15 PM by Ironeye

I'm bad, and that's good. I will never be good, and that's not bad. There's no one I'd rather be than me.

If you multiply a bunch of natural (positive, no fractions/decimals) numbers together, you get a bigger number.

edited 30th Sep '10 10:30:51 PM by Tzetze

[1] This facsimile operated in part by synAC.

^^ The statement, or my post?

^ Yes, but the first part seems wrong. Obviously, we reach a false conclusion, (3,5.) There, a finite set with only primes. Unless I'm being stupid and not knowing what "finite set" means.

edited 30th Sep '10 10:35:20 PM by Chubert

Whatcha gonna do, little buckaroo? | i be pimpin' madoka fics

Tzetze is correct.

I'm bad, and that's good. I will never be good, and that's not bad. There's no one I'd rather be than me.

You seem to have finite set correct. I'm just not sure how you get {3,5} as a way for things to fail.

I'm bad, and that's good. I will never be good, and that's not bad. There's no one I'd rather be than me.

All prime numbers, Chubert. A finite set can't contain all prime numbers.

[1] This facsimile operated in part by synAC.

'doh. Yeah, got that.

Whatcha gonna do, little buckaroo? | i be pimpin' madoka fics

Anyhow, I was annoyed at how ambiguous that was, so I tried Peano arithmetic, and uh oh god why.

[1] This facsimile operated in part by synAC.

You don't want to prove this kind of stuff directly from Peano's axioms, the result would be pretty much unreadable.

The simplest way is to first prove a bunch of lemmas (for example: "no natural number greater than one is a factor of both a number and that number plus one"), prove the result by means of these, and then invoke the Deduction Theorem.

Also, all formal proofs of Euclid's Theorem that I saw do not use the form "no finite set contains all prime numbers", but rather "for all natural numbers n, there exists a prime number p such that p > n".

The version you cite is then an easy consequence, but quantifying directly over sets tends to lead to all sorts of difficulties in this kind of framework - that's the reason why the induction axiom is written for formulas rather than for sets, for example.

In particular, there is no way whatsoever to write the statement "X is a finite set of integers" in First Order Logic  ^*

, so it'd be fairly problematic to directly translate your version of Euclid's Theorem into formal logic.

edited 1st Oct '10 6:36:04 AM by Carciofus

But they seem to know where they are going, the ones who walk away from Omelas.

Things in threads like this is why I went as far as I could in calculus, then switched to art and never looked back.

I HATE, DETEST, AND LOATHE MATHEMATICS. I BURN WITH A PASSIONATE RAGE AGAINST ALL THAT MATH IS, ALL THAT MATH STANDS FOR. MATH IS THE BANE OF MY EXISTENCE AS A HUMAN BEING~.

(anything beyond arithmetic. I like arithmetic. -cough-)

...I should go do my Precalc homework now. -_-

</3 ali

My iMood

Oh, come on, precalc is still easy this time of year.

Whatcha gonna do, little buckaroo? | i be pimpin' madoka fics

The heart seems out of place.

Precalc has manual matrix multiplication, so fuck that shit. Normally I like to at least know how to do all calculations by hand (to the extent of learning continued fractions), but, seriously. Fuck that shit.

[1] This facsimile operated in part by synAC.