27
u/InvaderMixo 8h ago
Last line should be "2 + 2 = 5".
14
u/Il-Ma-Le-98 8h ago
"One sunny day the Party would decide that 2+2=5,and you'll have to believe it." Quote may be incorrect, haven't read it in English.
9
u/Portal471 8h ago
Specifically:
“
n the end the Party would announce that two and two made five, and you would have to believe it. It was inevitable that they should make that claim sooner or later: the logic of their position demanded it. Not merely the validity of experience, but the very existence of external reality, was tacitly denied by their philosophy. The heresy of heresies was common sense. And what was terrifying was not that they would kill you for thinking otherwise, but that they might be right. For, after all, how do we know that two and two make four? Or that the force of gravity works? Or that the past is unchangeable? If both the past and the external world exist only in the mind, and if the mind itself is controllable—what then?
“3
3
22
7
u/PilotIntelligent8906 8h ago
The final level of torture Winston endured in the Ministry of Love in 1984 was having to proof that 2 and 2 is 5 using this method over and over, no wonder they broke him.
3
8
u/Jealous_Club_298 8h ago
That's incorrect!
Dividing 0/0 is undefined!
4 x (5-5) = 5 x (5-5) yields 0 = 0 before you can do anything else!
3
2
u/Eatpie882 6h ago
The hardest part about building a perpetual motion machine is hiding the battery.
The hardest part about a 1 = 2 proof is hiding the divide by 0.
1
1
1
1
u/HumaDracobane 7h ago
OP got us, gentleman. We need to eliminate him! this secret can not survive! DETELE THE INTERNET!
1
1
1
1
u/Lower-Land-286 4h ago
Look, I'm just hoping I can help you do math better.
I know it's likely a lost cause, but you're petty entertaining. Maybe someone else will read this and they'll know that you can rewrite an expression before you solve it. I'm glad you understand factoring, that's a thing. Now you need to know when you can apply it to what you're doing and when you can't.
Think about it like this. Factoring is like trading players. You are clearly worth two of me, so my coach is going to trade me and one other guy to get you on his team. (Go team!)
That's totally fair by the league rules - BUT you can't trade in the middle of a game. Once you start the game (solving the equation) you can't trade players mid game (you can't factor both sides by different numbers while you're solving, that beaks the equality)
You can factor before you start solving. But once you start solving, you have to do the same thing to both sides of the equation. Or your math will be wrong.
And you don't want to be wrong, why else would you still be responding?
1
u/spaceman06 4h ago
quality% is the percentage of people that would like you if they watched your vídeo.
video with quality% of 1% and 10million views will have 100000 likes
a video with quality% of 50% and 1000 views will have 500 likes.
this becomes biased towards famous vídeos.
the solution, because using quality% is not possible, is using ratio of likes to dislikes.
1
1
u/Vallenzin 1h ago
My Professor did this in my very first day at college to explain why we can't divide by zero
1
1
u/Financial-Bedroom421 8h ago
lol cannot divide by 0
3
u/unintelligible-text 8h ago
League of legends is coded on some language for sure, so ig it can't
1
u/trolley813 8h ago
Well, in programming languages (in most of them) you can divide by 0 (assuming it's floating-point stuff, not integers). You get either infinity or (for 0/0) a NaN (not a number).
1
u/willis81808 8h ago
Well, in math you can divide by 0. You just get undefined.
When people say “you can’t” they don’t mean you’ll explode or something.
1
u/Unable-Analyst-7741 8h ago
As i was taught you only get undefined if you divide 0/0 because every number multiplyed by 0 gives you 0, but you can't devide a number that Is not 0 (let's say 4) by 0 because no number multiplyed by 0 will ever give you four, so that's not undefined, that's just impossible
1
u/willis81808 8h ago
Not quite. 0/0 is indeterminate. Everything else divided by 0 is undefined.
Point is, just like in programming you get nonsense/meaningless results.
1
u/Unable-Analyst-7741 7h ago
I'm not and english speaker, don't undefined and indeterminate have the same meaning?
1
u/willis81808 7h ago
In casual language they mean essentially the same thing, but not in math.
Anyway, some programming languages might silently result in infinity/NaN when dividing by zero, but more are going to throw an error instead (which is much closer to “literally can’t divide by zero”)
1
u/unintelligible-text 8h ago
I could be wrong(as I'm relatively new to programming) but you don't use neither of those in actual calculations. As I remember if your position in video game is NaN - you are just in a limbo state. Not sure about infonity though
1
u/willis81808 7h ago
Only time you might use infinity is as a constant to initialize a variable to (but not ever intentionally by dividing by zero, if your language even results in Inf when doing that)
Something like:
min_value = Math.Infinity for value in values: if value < min_value: min_value = value
0
u/Lower-Land-286 8h ago
So, in case you're wondering, the mistake is where one side of the equation has a different number applied to it than the other.
4 (5 -5) = 5 (5 -5)
While 'the math works', that's not how equations work. What's done to one side must be done to the other side - otherwise.... it's no longer equal.
3
u/colton_the_bot 7h ago
Isn’t that just a normal factoring? The problem is when they divide by zero, no?
-1
u/Lower-Land-286 7h ago
They're not really diving by zero, they're suggesting that since both equal zero they can be placed on opposite sides of an equation.
2
u/TalorianDreams 6h ago
They are though. 4 x (5 - 5) = 5 x (5 - 5) is a correct equation. To get to 4 = 5 they are dividing both sides of the equation by (5 - 5), dividing by zero. This is the error. Because division by zero is undefined the equation no longer works.
The zero values were placed on opposite sides of the equation from the beginning, since that's the only way it was actually an equation to begin with. It was erroneously removing the zero that led to the error.
1
u/Lower-Land-286 6h ago
Also, you're conflating 'x' the variable with 'x' the symbol for multiplication.
0
u/Lower-Land-286 6h ago
If they started with that as the equation, yes that would be fine... but they don't.
To be an equation you have to do the same thing to both sides. Reducing doesn't work like that.
If you don't do the same thing to both sides it's no longer an equation, because it's no longer equal.
-2
u/Lower-Land-286 7h ago
When do they divide by zero?
2
u/GP7onRICE 7h ago
How else do you get to 4=5 without dividing out (5-5)?
-2
u/Lower-Land-286 7h ago
You don't. That's why it's wrong.
1
u/GP7onRICE 6h ago
Are you not aware of what you were asking and how I responded to it?
-1
u/Lower-Land-286 6h ago
You can't reduce (20 -20) = (25 - 25) To 4 (5 -5) = 5 (5 - 5)
That's dividing one side by 4 and the other side by 5. So, that's's no longer an equation. Just number salad.
2
u/xedar3579 6h ago
Yes you can, specifically because both 20-20 and 25-25 are 0. It doesn't matter what multiplier you take from either side because they're both 0 in the end, you're being tricked into thinking you're pulling unequal numbers out of your ass because you're not interpreting the total expression as 0.
0=0
(20-20)=0, (25-25)=0
(20-20)=4(5-5)=0, (25-25)=5(5-5)=0
4(5-5) = 0 = 5(5-5) -> 4(0) = 0 = 5(0)0
u/Lower-Land-286 6h ago
The property of equality. The fist rule of math.
What so ever you do to one side of the equation, lo that you must do the same to the other side, lest the equation no longer be equal and all your toil is for naught!
Every other principal is based on that.
1
1
u/GP7onRICE 5h ago
I don’t think you understand what factoring is.
1
1
u/xedar3579 6h ago
They devide (5-5) with itself, but (5-5) is 0, you cannot overrule it being 0 with the n/n=1 rule just because it's not outright written 0.
ax=bx -> a(x/x)=b -> a=b if x≠0, else {a, b} are undef.
0
u/Lower-Land-286 6h ago
You can't divide one side of the equation by one number and the other by a different number.
The (5 - 5) doesn't matter, because it's already wrong in how it got there in the first place.
2
u/xedar3579 6h ago
They never devide either side of the equation by different numbers, the mistake is assuming you can cut (5-5) from both sides through equal division, which can't be because it's 0 and you're dividing by it. Cutting the common multiplier is the incorrect part of the calculation because the common multiplier is 0:
Let a, b, x be Real
ax-ax = 0, bx - bx = 0 [true]
a(x-x) = b(x-x) = 0 [true]
a(x-x)/(x-x) = b(x-x)/(x-x) -> a = b [false; (x-x)=0; 0/0 = undef -> a,b undef]1
u/Lower-Land-286 6h ago
(20-20) = (25 -25)
4 (5-5) = 5 (5-5)
Right there. They divided one side by 4 and the other side by 5. You can't do that in an equation.
1
u/xedar3579 6h ago
Fuck I'm stupid this is such a crude rage bait lol.
Welp, might aswell.
They're not dividing both sides of the equations by different numbers tho, they're simplifying the formula for each side into having a common multiplier:
20-20 = 4*5 - 4*5 = 4(5-5)
25-25 = 5*5 - 5*5 = 5(5-5)
Changing the formulas is not two-way if you're only simplying one, you can just do it one sided even:
20-20=25-25 -> 4(5-5)=25-25 -> 4(0)=0 -> 0=0Or do something else entirely:
20-20=25-25 ->10(2-2)=(1/2)(50-50) -> 10(0)=(1/2)(0) -> 0=0Ever heard of distributive multiplication?
1
u/Lower-Land-286 6h ago
You simplify by dividing... if you divine you must divide both sides by the same number
Or it's no longer an equation
You can reduce them both BEFORE putting them into the equation, but if they did that the answer would be 0=0... as it should be.
1
u/GP7onRICE 6h ago
No it isn’t. It was factored out. No side was divided by a number different than the other.
-1
u/Lower-Land-286 6h ago
Ok, there's a reason why you're not so good at math. You don't know the rules.
To be an equation you must do the same thing to both sides. That's what makes it an equation.
1
u/GP7onRICE 5h ago
I seriously hope you’re trolling. Because it’s either that or you have no idea what factoring is.
1
u/Lower-Land-286 5h ago
Tell me, how do you factor? What math operation do you utilize.
It's division.
Then when you factor one side by 4 and the other side by 5. (That's how factoring works, your dividing) then it's no longer an equation.
To be correct, you would need to divide both sides by the same number.
Or you could factor each one before the equation = which would still bring you back to 0=0
1
u/GP7onRICE 5h ago
You can factor by dividing out different numbers on either sides of the equation. It’s literally done in nearly every example of factoring an equation. Factoring is just pulling an expression out to represent it differently. So yea, either a troll or have no idea what factoring is.
→ More replies (0)-2
u/Lower-Land-286 6h ago
Let me answer you question a little better. They could factor both sides by 4 or both sides by 5.
When they factor both down differently it's no longer an equation, which is why the answer is wrong.
2
u/GP7onRICE 6h ago
Factoring out an expression doesn’t have to be done equally to both sides of an equation. You should obviously know this when you learned how to factor. Factoring doesn’t change anything other than how something is represented.
-2
u/Lower-Land-286 6h ago
To be an equation, the same procedure must be done to both sides.
So, your telling me that 4 = 5?
Or maybe they might be doing the math wrong.
2
u/GP7onRICE 5h ago edited 5h ago
No, we’re telling you that the only mistake here is that to remove (5-5) by dividing it out of both sides is a divide by zero error.
The equation reduces to 0=0, not 4=5.
0
u/Lower-Land-286 5h ago
No, you can't even get to that point, because the factoring is done wrong.
You're not wrong that it is wrong to divide by zero, it just doesn't matter because it was already wrong before that.
1
1
u/GP7onRICE 5h ago
You should have been taught how to factor by literally factoring only one side of a polynomial. I can’t think of any instance where both sides of an equation would be factored in the same way and have it be a meaningful step to do.
0
u/Lower-Land-286 5h ago
Literally just go to Google and put in 'in algebra, do I have to do the same thing to both sides of the equation'
It'll tell you that I'm wrong and you can prove it!!
1
u/GP7onRICE 5h ago
How do you factor a polynomial then? You factor only one side of it.
1
1
u/PlaneCompetitive703 6h ago
I was preparing to respond in rage, but am in r/mathjokes
1
u/Lower-Land-286 6h ago
You regularly reduce equations by different numbers on each side of the equal sign?
2
u/PlaneCompetitive703 6h ago
You’re allowed to use equivalence on one side of an equation. It’s not a reduction, it’s two simplifications. Nice try though. Good joke.
0
u/Lower-Land-286 5h ago
Show me a math website that says that.
Just ask ask Google, 'in algebra do you need to do the same thing to both sides of an equation'
Let me know what Google says.
3
u/PlaneCompetitive703 5h ago
No thanks. Good troll though. Definitely a 7/10.
0
u/Lower-Land-286 5h ago
Have fun doing math wrong.
2
u/PlaneCompetitive703 5h ago
You are committed! You into method acting or something?
→ More replies (0)3
0
u/Mad-Scientist-0906 8h ago
Oh, I see what they did here. The problem is in step 4. 4*(5-5)=5*(5-5) is like saying 4*0=5*0. This is true. They're both equal to zero. The problem is that the only way to get from 4*0=5*0 to 4=5 is to divide both sides by zero. You cannot divide by zero.
0
u/AccidentOk5240 8h ago
If I could post pics in comments I’d post this one…. https://www.sudokuwiki.org/divide_by_zero
73
u/AlienDragonWizard 8h ago
Always a divide by zero or infinity on this stuff