0gb.us Posted June 27, 2012 Share Posted June 27, 2012 As a friend of mine put it (in reference to 53x+m³=Ø): Now you see, 0gb.us, 53 times x plus the cube of m can't possible be an empty set. Looking at the actual mathematical meaning of the equation, I'm afraid he's right. We need to find an equation that is both asexy and mathematically possible. Any ideas? Link to post Share on other sites
Verb Posted June 27, 2012 Share Posted June 27, 2012 For those of us with the curiosity that allows an interest in mathematics, but who also lack the proper education needed to dissect such an equation....What the hell does that mean? :P Link to post Share on other sites
0gb.us Posted June 27, 2012 Author Share Posted June 27, 2012 For those of us with the curiosity that allows an interest in mathematics, but who also lack the proper education needed to dissect such an equation....What the hell does that mean? :P Ø is the empty set, so it basically means the equation produces no answer. However, because addition, multiplication, and exponents are the only operations use, the equation always produces exactly one answer, making the statement incorrect. After removing the exponent, we are left with an equation like this: 53 * x + m * m * m = a set of no answers If x and m are variables, they can stand for anything. Let's make x be two, and m be three. 53 * 2 + 3 * 3 * 3 = a set of no answers after multiplying: 106 + 27 = a set of no answers After adding ... : 133 = a set of no answers 133 isn't a set of no answers, meaning that the equation makes no sense mathematically. So what does the equation mean? Nothing! It's utter nonsense. Link to post Share on other sites
DancingThroughTheShadows Posted June 27, 2012 Share Posted June 27, 2012 Oh it's easy to understand like that. :) Link to post Share on other sites
cdrdash Posted June 27, 2012 Share Posted June 27, 2012 As a friend of mine put it (in reference to 53x+m³=Ø): Now you see, 0gb.us, 53 times x plus the cube of m can't possible be an empty set. Looking at the actual mathematical meaning of the equation, I'm afraid he's right. We need to find an equation that is both asexy and mathematically possible. Any ideas? I interpret Ø as a zero not an empty set. With this interpretation, the equation is mathematically possible, meaning there are values for x and m which will result in a value of zero. For instance the values m=53 and x=-2809 will work. Link to post Share on other sites
0gb.us Posted June 27, 2012 Author Share Posted June 27, 2012 I interpret Ø as a zero not an empty set. With this interpretation, the equation is mathematically possible, meaning there are values for x and m which will result in a value of zero. For instance the values m=53 and x=-2809 will work. Well, Ø ≠ 0 . They just aren't the same thing. You can put a slash through a zero (I always do), but the equation uses the empty set character. If we replaced the empty set with a zero, we would have a valid equation, but it wouldn't be the same. For one thing, people would think we were referring to the original equation, but that we don't know how to inset empty set characters. Wait a minute ... I think they used "#216: latin capital letter o with stroke", instead of "#8709: empty set" ... Link to post Share on other sites
Verb Posted June 27, 2012 Share Posted June 27, 2012 For those of us with the curiosity that allows an interest in mathematics, but who also lack the proper education needed to dissect such an equation....What the hell does that mean? :P Ø is the empty set, so it basically means the equation produces no answer. There we go, that was all I was missing. Also forgetting the actual meaning behind the equation didn't help either XD Ok, so recalling my basic maths education, how about rephrasing it... P(53x+m³)=Ø? Though having said that, it still runs into the problem that Ø is an invalid conclusion, whereas the conclusion arising from the sentiment of the equation is always absolute...and therefore incompatible. Ø is the problem. We're trying to describe the affirmative with a negative. Link to post Share on other sites
0gb.us Posted June 27, 2012 Author Share Posted June 27, 2012 There we go, that was all I was missing. Also forgetting the actual meaning behind the equation didn't help either XD Ok, so recalling my basic maths education, how about rephrasing it... P(53x+m³)=Ø? Though having said that, it still runs into the problem that Ø is an invalid conclusion, whereas the conclusion arising from the sentiment of the equation is always absolute...and therefore incompatible. Ø is the problem. We're trying to describe the affirmative with a negative. Exactly. ∅ makes the equation is invalid. So is what you're suggesting negative numbers? That sounds doable. Oops, I misunderstood. But negative numbers might work for us. I see what kind of short number phrase I can come up with that fits the sentiment. Link to post Share on other sites
5_♦♣ Posted June 27, 2012 Share Posted June 27, 2012 This thread makes me feel like I'm in math class all over again. Link to post Share on other sites
Verb Posted June 27, 2012 Share Posted June 27, 2012 P(53x+m³) ≤ 0? :P Why do I feel that's too simplistic...and wrong... Link to post Share on other sites
Qutenkuddly Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 I was about to move this thread into Off-A before I read it in l33t sP34k. *face palm* Link to post Share on other sites
A Case Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 I think it's fine the way it is. Sometimes nonsense is good. Link to post Share on other sites
Siggy Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 It's supposed to read "Sex plus me equals no result". It's an old attempt at a symbol or inside joke or something. I think it's pretty terrible, but considering how long it's stuck around, I must be wrong about it. Link to post Share on other sites
0gb.us Posted June 28, 2012 Author Share Posted June 28, 2012 This thread makes me feel like I'm in math class all over again. If you were paying attention to the professor, you would know that this is math class. P(53x+m³) ≤ 0? :P Why do I feel that's too simplistic...and wrong... Less than or equal to zero ... negative results for some, no result for others? Sounds like a promising candidate. I was about to move this thread into Off-A before I read it in l33t sP34k. *face palm* I suck at leet speak too. I got the equation from the wiki. Link to post Share on other sites
R_1 Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 Am I the only one who's thinking that the X and M is undefined, so therefore the answer is ∅ unless X and M is defined? Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 Could always do 53x + M3 = nθ or something. Link to post Share on other sites
5_♦♣ Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 This thread makes me feel like I'm in math class all over again. If you were paying attention to the professor, you would know that this is math class. And here I thought this was just a thread on an internet forum. Link to post Share on other sites
0gb.us Posted June 28, 2012 Author Share Posted June 28, 2012 Am I the only one who's thinking that the X and M is undefined, so therefore the answer is ∅ unless X and M is defined? It depends on the context, really. In a computer program, yes, x and m have to be defined first. But not in algebra, which I think is the class we're in right now. I'm not sure on that, but I'll get back to you after checking the class schedule. Could always do 53x + M3 = nθ or something. YES. I like it. Let's use that one. This thread makes me feel like I'm in math class all over again. If you were paying attention to the professor, you would know that this is math class. And here I thought this was just a thread on an internet forum. Don't feel too bad. It's a common misconception. Link to post Share on other sites
Lady Longshadow Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 But doesn't the fact this equation is invalid make it an even better shorthand? The equation being mathematically false makes it more apparent that the true message is not mathematical in nature. Link to post Share on other sites
0gb.us Posted June 28, 2012 Author Share Posted June 28, 2012 Hmm. You do have a good point. It does seem a little more covert if you use a valid equation ... Then again, using an invalid equation could be interpreted as having an invalid sexual orientation. Link to post Share on other sites
runester Posted June 29, 2012 Share Posted June 29, 2012 "invalid sexual orientation" (?) - No such thing!! Link to post Share on other sites
Maiandra HW Posted June 29, 2012 Share Posted June 29, 2012 Can't it be if x does not equal -(m^3)/53? Then the two sides of the equation can't equal each other. I don't think this is exactly right, but maybe? EDIT: Actually, no, never mind. This is all wrong. Ignore me. Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.