Christian Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
-
Guest, Join Papa Zoom today for some uplifting biblical encouragement! --> Daily Verses
Only a genuis dares this.
- Thread starter Classik
- Start date
abide
Member
Classik
Member
Classik, you again with this
O yea! And that's one of the easiest
Classik
Member
Here, when changing the first equal sign so that it shows a ratio, one might read, "One is to Two equals 0 multiplied by x"
or "Three is to six equals 3 multiplied by x"
But even this is unsolvable b/c when we multiply any "X" by zero, the product is = 0
Classic, we need a better setup, a better definition for your question, in order for it to make sense. My conclusion is that it doesn't take a genius to solve the math, but it might take more than genius to understand the question as posed. Here is an answer.
I didn't enter the complete answer because the system said:
This would qualify because you said, "Only a genuis dares this." not that he/she must answer correctly, only that they would "dare".
Claudya
Member
Hehe! You still here? I thought you were gone;) 'Elcome back
I wasn't gone. Just didn't post much lately.
Thnaks though!
I was thinking of something like that, but... duuuuude he can't just use an equal sign if he means something else. That's unlawfull.
I wasn't gone. Just didn't post much lately.
Thnaks though!
I was thinking of something like that, but... duuuuude he can't just use an equal sign if he means something else. That's unlawfull.
Classic is earning "boink points"
My thought is that as soon as an expression is evaluated to be false, the rest is the statement is to be ignored.
For example, if 1 = 2... Since this does not evaluate true, there is no need to read further. It's all false, the conclusion is predicated on the premise.
Giving grace to the poster (favor that he/she does not merit) would allow us to temporarily suspend the obvious and attempt the answer but when even that is frustrated with further misuse of the equals sign, it become impossible. 1 = 2 = -x ???
Substitution of an operation sign might be considered for the first irrationality so that 1 = 2 could be considered as 1:2 or "1 is to two" and then the question (if it might be considered that even for a moment) would shift to the value of -x in order to determine what value could make the initial expression (or our interpretation) of it to be true. But this is, as you point out, is overly generous and violates the laws of mathematics. This exercise in futility continues after one surmises that the value of "x" needed to make 1 : 2 is (-1/2) and the next "problem" or step in the process becomes, What value of "X" may be substituted to cause the relationship between 2 and 4 to be equal to (0) multiplied by (X). Clearly, this "X" can not be multiplied by zero and another unmerited process must be introduced. It's anybodies guess at that point (if it is a point?) what is meant.
Classic, did this "riddle" appear to you in a dream? If so, I'd suggest you not lose any more sleep over it.
Corey
Member
F=66
Y=1023
x=1
The = signs are not actually equal signs. They are just dividers. These are not math equations, they are patterns.
F is always double the first #.
Y is calulated as: ( (the first column) X (the first column) ) - (the second column)
(In the first row -x is the same as -1x)
X is 1 because anything multiplied by 1 is that number.
Hopefully my explanation makes sense.
Y=1023
x=1
The = signs are not actually equal signs. They are just dividers. These are not math equations, they are patterns.
F is always double the first #.
Y is calulated as: ( (the first column) X (the first column) ) - (the second column)
(In the first row -x is the same as -1x)
X is 1 because anything multiplied by 1 is that number.
Hopefully my explanation makes sense.
thisnumbersdisconnected
Member
I was told there would be no math.
Classik
Member
thisnumbersdisconnected
Member
Again, I was told there would be no math.
Classik
Member
Classik
Member
I wasn't gone. Just didn't post much lately.
Thnaks though!
I was thinking of something like that, but... duuuuude he can't just use an equal sign if he means something else. That's unlawfull.
You have such an amazing way of responding to critical matters. It makes me lol
Classik
Member
:toofunny :toofunny
Classik
Member
Yeah, and he never gives solutions to his riddles.
Classik, whatever it is that you are smoking - please send me some!
I've been thinking about linear functions of the F(x)= mx + n kind.
Maybe you'd need to find the right m and n coefficients for it to make sense.
;)
try the Blaugrana latex