Motivational Posters Thread

[GasBandit]

Okay, I'm banning anyone who makes posts another math poster that gets all the number dorks in a tizzy -_-. Where's the FUNNY, DAMNIT

They all are just antsy ever since 7 8 9.

 

[CynicismKills]

Okay, I'm banning anyone who makes posts another math poster that gets all the number dorks in a tizzy -_-. Where's the FUNNY, DAMNIT

YOUR FACE

 

[Holy Knickers]

http://www.questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=593

Math is delicious!

One of my all time favorite web comics ^^

 

[ElJuski]

Okay, I'm banning anyone who makes posts another math poster that gets all the number dorks in a tizzy -_-. Where's the FUNNY, DAMNIT

They all are just antsy ever since 7 8 9.

I like you.

 

[Wahad]

 

[Philosopher B.]

^ That's awesome! Should'a known someone would make a poster out of that.

 

[EdPeters]

I REFUSE TO LET THIS THREAD DIE! UNHOLY BUMP FROM THE ABYSS!!

And now, I delve into the dark depths of my thumb drive:

Rawr.

 

[klew]

 

[Ross]

It's not an assumption that a=b, it's given. To do the proof, you have to work within the framework that a=b from the very start. At any point where a cannot equal b, you're done. You cannot go any further.

...and therefore the "given" is wrong. We have proved it is wrong. Therefore, a cannot equal b in the first place, and it cannot be true at ANY point during the problem.

 

[Tinwhistler]

It's not an assumption that a=b, it's given. To do the proof, you have to work within the framework that a=b from the very start. At any point where a cannot equal b, you're done. You cannot go any further.

...and therefore the "given" is wrong. We have proved it is wrong. Therefore, a cannot equal b in the first place, and it cannot be true at ANY point during the problem.

It's not the a=b that's the problem. It's the division by zero that invalidates the proof. You might want to bone up a bit on "mathematical proofs" for greater understanding.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_proof
http://zimmer.csufresno.edu/~larryc/proofs/proofs.html
http://www.math.uconn.edu/~hurley/math3 ... berger.pdf

 

[Ross]

It's not an assumption that a=b, it's given. To do the proof, you have to work within the framework that a=b from the very start. At any point where a cannot equal b, you're done. You cannot go any further.

...and therefore the "given" is wrong. We have proved it is wrong. Therefore, a cannot equal b in the first place, and it cannot be true at ANY point during the problem.

It's not the a=b that's the problem. It's the division by zero that invalidates the proof. You might want to bone up a bit on "mathematical proofs" for greater understanding.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_proof
http://zimmer.csufresno.edu/~larryc/proofs/proofs.html
http://www.math.uconn.edu/~hurley/math3 ... berger.pdf

We've established that, in order for a=b, it has to be a=b=0. Now, we prove that a=b=0 is false. Therefore, a=b is invalid, and the given statement is false. Now, using what we have found within the proof, we can say that a=b is a false given from the very beginning.

i.e. since we've discovered that division by zero invalidates the proof, we can say that the problem IS the given that a=b, since it is impossible.

EDIT:
YOU might want to read up on a little thing called "proof by contradiction", which is what we're given. We want to prove that a cannot equal b, so we are given a=b. We proved a cannot equal b, and therefore the given is a false one.

 

[Amy old]

Okay, I'm banning anyone who makes posts another math poster that gets all the number dorks in a tizzy -_-. Where's the FUNNY, DAMNIT

 

[Tinwhistler]

YOU might want to read up on a little thing called "proof by contradiction", which is what we're given. We want to prove that a cannot equal b, so we are given a=b. We proved a cannot equal b, and therefore the given is a false one.

We don't want to prove a cannot equal b. The poster is trying to prove that 1=2. That's not proof by contradiction.
http://www.delphiforfun.org/Programs/Ma ... iction.htm

The "Proof by Contradiction" is also known as reductio ad absurdum, which is probably Latin for "reduce it to something absurd".

Here's the idea:

1. Assume that a given proposition is untrue.
2. Based on that assumption reach two conclusions that contradict each other.

What the poster is doing, instead, is using faulty math to try to prove 1=2. We are "given" a=b. That means it's absolutely true. We must then prove 1=2 using mathematical steps along the way. 1=2 is our result we must prove, given a=b.

The division by zero is where that proof breaks. However, there's no point in me repeating myself if you're just not getting it, so, that's all I have to say on it.

 

[Ross]

Alright, I just thought of a great way to put it:

In algebra, when working with equations, you end up with the same thing you started with, just in a different form. Let's start with a=b=1. At the END of the proof, this is not true, and therefore we are not allowed to START with a=b=1. This is true for all cases when a and b are not equal to 0.

Now take the a=b=0 case. As we work through the proof, we discover a division by 0, and cannot finish the proof. Since we cannot END with a=b=0, we cannot START with a=b=0.

Therefore, we cannot START with a=b, since we cannot END with a=b.

I hope that clarifies things, if it had not yet been clarified.

 

[sixpackshaker]

YOU might want to read up on a little thing called "proof by contradiction", which is what we're given. We want to prove that a cannot equal b, so we are given a=b. We proved a cannot equal b, and therefore the given is a false one.

We don't want to prove a cannot equal b. The poster is trying to prove that 1=2. That's not proof by contradiction.
http://www.delphiforfun.org/Programs/Ma ... iction.htm

The "Proof by Contradiction" is also known as reductio ad absurdum, which is probably Latin for "reduce it to something absurd".

Here's the idea:

1. Assume that a given proposition is untrue.
2. Based on that assumption reach two conclusions that contradict each other.

What the poster is doing, instead, is using faulty math to try to prove 1=2. The division by zero is where that proof breaks. However, there's no point in me repeating myself if you're just not getting it, so, that's all I have to say on it.

YOUR MATH IS TEARING THIS FORUM APART!!!

I feel like an After School Special.

 

[Ross]

YOU might want to read up on a little thing called "proof by contradiction", which is what we're given. We want to prove that a cannot equal b, so we are given a=b. We proved a cannot equal b, and therefore the given is a false one.

We don't want to prove a cannot equal b. The poster is trying to prove that 1=2. That's not proof by contradiction.
http://www.delphiforfun.org/Programs/Ma ... iction.htm

The "Proof by Contradiction" is also known as reductio ad absurdum, which is probably Latin for "reduce it to something absurd".

Here's the idea:

1. Assume that a given proposition is untrue.
2. Based on that assumption reach two conclusions that contradict each other.

What the poster is doing, instead, is using faulty math to try to prove 1=2. The division by zero is where that proof breaks. However, there's no point in me repeating myself if you're just not getting it, so, that's all I have to say on it.

Okay, so we try to prove 1=2. We cannot. Therefore we have proven that 1 cannot equal 2, which is, in its nature, a proof by contradiction. While the math wasn't TRYING to do a proof by contradiction, that is what we ended up doing.

 

[Tinwhistler]

Okay, so we try to prove 1=2. We cannot. Therefore we have proven that 1 cannot equal 2, which is, in its nature, a proof by contradiction. While the math wasn't TRYING to do a proof by contradiction, that is what we ended up doing.

That's one way of looking at it. But the proof still broke at the division by 0, not at the a=b. That's the whole point. At the division by 0 step, the entire proof falls apart. not at the a=b step, which is a "given statement".

Look at the poster again: "Given: a=b" Is the first line. The "given" line is the "postulate" or "axiom" of the proof. These are to be accepted as absolutely true. Thus the a=b line is not where it breaks down.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom
http://mathforum.org/library/drmath/view/54726.html

The study of geometry is the first place I encountered an axiom
system.
You start with certain "undefined objects," in this case "point,"
"line," "plane," "length," "area," "between," etc. Then you are given
certain statements about them which you are to accept as true. These
are called Postulates or Axioms. They appear in the very first part of
your book on Plane Geometry. Examples might be:

That's the whole point that's me and DarkAudit have been trying to make to you. a=b is an axiom. It's not where the proof fails. a can equal b. You just can't go from a=b to 1=2, and the failure point is the division by zero. This kind of proof reading (pun intended) is fundamental math.

 

[Ross]

Okay, so we try to prove 1=2. We cannot. Therefore we have proven that 1 cannot equal 2, which is, in its nature, a proof by contradiction. While the math wasn't TRYING to do a proof by contradiction, that is what we ended up doing.

That's one way of looking at it. But the proof still broke at the division by 0, not at the a=b. That's the whole point. At the division by 0 step, the entire proof falls apart. not at the a=b step, which is a "given statement".

Look at the poster again: "Given: a=b" Is the first line. The "given" line is the "postulate" or "axiom" of the proof. These are to be accepted as absolutely true. Thus the a=b line is not where it breaks down.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom
http://mathforum.org/library/drmath/view/54726.html

The study of geometry is the first place I encountered an axiom
system.
You start with certain "undefined objects," in this case "point,"
"line," "plane," "length," "area," "between," etc. Then you are given
certain statements about them which you are to accept as true. These
are called Postulates or Axioms. They appear in the very first part of
your book on Plane Geometry. Examples might be:

That's the whole point that's me and DarkAudit have been trying to make to you. a=b is an axiom. It's not where the proof fails. a can equal b. You just can't go from a=b to 1=2, and the failure point is the division by zero. This kind of proof reading (pun intended) is fundamental math.

Did I ever, EVER say that since a=b is false for THIS problem, that it must be false for ALL problems? NO

I said it was wrong for THIS PROOF. When I originally stated "a cannot be equal to b", it was in reference to THIS PROOF, not to a=b in general.

Fuck yeah you can have a=b, IN OTHER PROBLEMS, WHICH ARE NOT BEING DISCUSSED AT THE MOMENT. In THIS problem, we find that a=b is impossible, and therefore WE CAN ASSUME FROM THIS CONCLUSION that a=b cannot be true from the very beginning. Like I said, if you cannot END with the SAME THING YOU STARTED WITH, like a=b=0, then it CANNOT BE a=b=0, or any other number for that matter.

That is what is wrong with THIS PROOF. If you want to talk about any other proofs in which a CAN equal b, be my guest, but that is not what we were doing... or at least not what I was doing.

 

[Amy old]

 

[Ross]

Look at the poster again: "Given: a=b" Is the first line. The "given" line is the "postulate" or "axiom" of the proof. These are to be accepted as absolutely true. Thus the a=b line is not where it breaks down.

Just wanted to point this statement out.

Here's a proof of my own, starting with:
Given: 1=2.

Oh look, it's a given! Because it's a given, does that make it true? NO! It's only there to let us ASSUME IT'S TRUE. If we can prove it's FALSE, then it IS false. It's how proof by contradictions WORK. To say this proof is NOT a proof by contradiction just makes you lose all of your math credibility.

EDIT:
I'd like to also add in the little fact that my stance is backed up by my girlfriend, who is TEACHING algebra. She has also spoken to other teachers who teach algebra about this. If they're all wrong, then our kids taking math are fucked, considering New York has one of the best education systems in the country (paired with California at the top). If they're wrong, how much worse is it elsewhere?

 

I've never had to lock a thread because of non-offensive math before. How odd would that be?

Let's at least try to keep a veneer of a topic here!

Here's where anyone else would post a funny motivational poster, but alas I have none. Pretend there's one here with a scathing picture of Ravenpoe's avatar.

Subject:

Math Nerds

Tag line:

Apparently get why e=mc^2 but can't make a fucking poster about it.

 

[Wahad]

You ask, we serve.

 

[Ross]

I've never had to lock a thread because of non-offensive math before. How odd would that be?

Let's at least try to keep a veneer of a topic here!

Here's where anyone else would post a funny motivational poster, but alas I have none. Pretend there's one here with a scathing picture of Ravenpoe's avatar.

Subject:

Math Nerds

Tag line:

Apparently get why e=mc^2 but can't make a fucking poster about it.

I'm sorry, Ed. It's just that, well, he's WRONG, and I'm fixing it.

I've said all that I can say about it. If he/they still don't believe me, then they're in some sort of fantasy world. I know my math. I have many people around me who know math. I and they all have the same thoughts on this proof.

Here you go:

 

[EsteBeatDown]

I'm sorry, Ed. It's just that, well, he's WRONG, and I'm fixing it.

I've said all that I can say about it. If he/they still don't believe me, then they're in some sort of fantasy world. I know my math. I have many people around me who know math. I and they all have the same thoughts on this proof.

Excellent point. And now for a witty retort.

Thank you for filling this awesome thread with your bullshit math banter.

 

[Odie]

I stole the words from another poster but it made me laugh and was not MATH related.

 

[Amy old]

 

[Odie]

People know i cant spell. Congrads you GOT me.





I will be over there......













:waah: :waah: :waah: :waah:

 

[GasBandit]

 

[redthirtyone]

 

[Amy old]

dammit!


in my weak defense, my misspelling didnt change the meaning of the poster

 

[GasBandit]

And here I didn't post that because I thought it was intentional and ironic. Shows what I get for assuming.

 

[Amy old]

And here I didn't post that because I thought it was intentional and ironic. Shows what I get for assuming.

asleep at the wheel, man.

 

[Rubicon]

less math, more funny

 

[Futureking]

After an hour on gimp, I lost the creativity to make a better caption.

One of you guys make it for me.

I'M ORIGINAL!!!Unlike the hacks out there.

One day, Mr. T is going to sing it and I'll be t-rolling you guys.

 

[GasBandit]

Not a DeMotiPoster but one of my favorites.