You should be able to solve this.
You should be able to solve this
Other urls found in this thread:
en.wikipedia.org
wolframalpha.com
webtoons.com
fictionpress.com
askamathematician.com
twitter.com
sqrt 6
sqrt(6)
(2)^(1/2) * (3)^(1/2) = (2 * 3)^(1/2)
QED. Simplification is for plebs.
You can add and subtract with square roots but not divide or multiply.
sqrt(A) + sqrt(B) = sqrt(A+B)
sqrt(A)/sqrt(B) != sqrt(A/B)
sqrt5
Banana
Nice bait
>sqrt(A) + sqrt(B) = sqrt(A+B)
really?
sqrt9+sqrt25=sqrt34
sqrt34=3+5
8*8=34?
no?
It's basically 6x = ?, cannot be solved.
Even if you're pretending, it still makes you a retard.
>real number multiplied by another real number
>can't be solved
>real number
All numbers are real, otherwise they wouldn't be numbers.
It's easy, really. You just need to use Euler's theorem to take the Laplace constant of the two so that you don't get a complex number and then you can do a quick differentiation of the integral on the three with only a slight dip into some set theory to define the roots as infinitesmal and you can easily solve this equation in time for lunch.
All irrational numbers should be deleted from math.
Yay or yay?
They serve no purpose in the real world.
all numbers are imaginary retard
>6x
that a multiplication sign, not a variable
How do you measure something between the two smallest measurements?
Use your dick.
With a ruler. And rulers have only rational numbers.
What if it's less than a foot long though?
I'm trained as a Historian and currently an EFL teacher, I can't do math.
√2x√3=?
x=?/(6√²)
How inadequate
Hit it with a rock until the pieces form an answer
3*3=9, therefore 3>sqrt(6).
Using the Babylonian method:
It1: 3 => 6/3 = 2 => (3+2)/2 = 2.5
It2: 2.5 => 6/2.5 = 2.4 => (2.5+2.4)/2 = 2.45
It3: 2.45 => 6/2.45 ~= 2.44 => (2.44+2.45)/2 =~ 2.449
sqrt(2)sqrt(3)=sqrt(6)~=2.449
Define 'real'.
Define 'number'.
Define 'numbers'.
>How do you measure something between the two smallest measurements?
Ignore it. Significant figures.
How about pi?
you're not real, BURN ;)
>merely pretending
You should be able to solve this.
Isn't pi more like a constant related to circles than a random irrational? it's like C or G. You could say it's a special number, an honorary rational.
1.8612097182
Are people in this thread really that retarded?
keit-ai
Define 'define'.
>Ignore it.
That's not the way we do things in the real world.
'define': weuuv pjenq jcpiuw aspuoy vabs
Define 'shitpost'
your're mom
at least my mum doesn't need to wait for the earth to rotate to see her feet
Finds a way.
Already a thing.
...
#define REALNUMBER long double
>using floats
Hahaha fucking faggot
Ok, that's kind of cool
He said real numbers, not rationals.
...
Sup Forums already solved this it's 20
and the triangle looks like this
I'm no mathematician, but aren't irrational numbers more or less just our current mathematical system being too inaccurate to explain certain problems, i.e. 100/3 = 33.33333~?
It sounds like the practical solution isn't to just say "stop thinking about these, they're useless".
Fractions are rational.
Stop posting that because it's already a thing.
Numbers are abstractions that don't exist in the physical world you fucking 89iq
So circles can't exist ?
If I were to draw a circle with an area of say, 2m^2, that would be impossible ?
*square not circle
1.414*1.732=2.449
I'm not sure how you got you answer but you're wrong.
Can somebody explain to retarded me?
Irrational literally means you cannot compute the number as a ratio of two whole numbers. What you're probably thinking of is that computers have limited memory so can only store a limited amount of digits form an irrational number (which is called a rational approximation since any terminating decimal is rational).
pi is a special kind of irrational number called a "transcendental number". Despite the fancy name it just means it's not the solution of any polynomial equation. So the square root of 2 is the solution to (x^2 - 2 = 0), the golden ratio is the solution to (x^2 - x - 1), but pi isn't th solution to anything like that, neither is e.
Solve what?
Find the letter on the keyboard and move your finger in the direction of the bite mark.
Nice, now prove it.
Why does Sup Forums fail spectacularly in math?
v2*v3=?
v6=?
v=?/6
There is an infinite amount of solutions to this equation. For every real value of v there exists a value of ? that would make the equation correct.
inb4
>b-b-but v doesn't have to be real
You are not smart, you are a smartass. Solution exists for every complex value of v too. See, I know words too!
just use "lunar" math.
The addition of two digits is the lArgest digit.
The multiplication of two digits is the sMallest digit.
A square of an area of 2 m^2 has a side length of 2 since 2 times 2 is 2.
The circumference of a polygon is the largest side,
Achilles and the turtle would never move.
You can solve Fermat's last theorem for any numbers, since
a^n + b^n = a + b = (a + b)^n
Well, this is going to be silly.
>circles
Sorry, didn't read that. Not sure how to "correctly" find formulas for the area, but if we use or formula (pi times r times r) then the answer is also 2 (if pi >= 2).
Okay:
a^x * b^x = (a * b)^x
Pf)
Base Case- a^0 * b^0 = 1 * 1 = 1 = (a * b)^0
Assume this holds true for n steps
Inductive Case- take n + 1th step
a^(n+1) * b^(n+1)
= (a^n * a) * (b^n * b)
= ((a^n) * (b^n)) * (a * b)
= (a * b)^n * (a * b)
= (a * b)^n+1
QED
Now using this, we have
sqrt 2 x sqrt 3
= 2^(1/2) * 3^(1/2)
= (2 * 3)^(1/2)
= 6^(1/2)
= sqrt 6
QED
But what about this 9?
(2)^-2 * (3)^-2 = ?
2 * 3 = (?)^2
6 = (?)^2
? = (6)^-2
Anyone asking for a full proof is an idiot that doesn't understand how axioms work. The divide between the assumptions one claims this way and the assumptions one makes with a 'full proof' is totally irrelevant. Mathtards love their busywork.
nice try, but this only proves it for integer exponents, and a, b must be not 0, since 0^0 is undefined.
Why? 0^0 is defined, as 0^0.
>caring about math you will literally never ever use in your entire life if you are in a respectable trade
Who gives a shit? Am I going to ask the cashier for √47 cents in change?
it is undefined as it can have multiple values.
Is this the thread where we pretend to be smart
?
An empty product is always the neutral element of multiplication (1) just like an empty sum is always the neutral element of addition (0).
That isn't undefined you dope. Why are mathtards so stupid? They can't even grasp elementary logic*. They LITERALLY make crap up just because it's convenient.
It is 0^0, that is a definition. That is a symbol. Do you claim that symbols now have a hierarchy of validity?
* No, the 'higher matheamatics' your Indian professor and /sci/ told you about is not good logic. Good logic doesn't even exist.
This.
It's mindboggling they teach anything beyond long-division and multiplication when you never use that garbage unless you're a maths major, in which case you and your ilk haven't contributed anything of note in the past ~200 years.
We'd be better off replacing highschool maths with a general skills class, like "how to fill out of a tax return", "how to drive a car", basic first-aid, and more advanced sex-ed. Things nobody is taught but which are critically important.
>but this only proves it for integer exponents
Damn
It's late and I don't want to do a continuous proof ok
There's discrepancy due to combinatorial arguments (1 way to map from empty set to empty set) and calculus (0^0 is p common as an indeterminate form) but a, b are already non-zero so who cares
i hope this thread will still be up 16 hours later
based retardbros
t. retardbro
>retard
>math majors fall for the 200k meme
>all trade schools make it and do respectable crafts for more than anyone else
Using math is like eating with your hands. We used to do it thousands of years ago, now there is no need.
...
What's your argument this time?
I though it was "math" is useless and we shouldn't learn it.
...
It's hard enough to get the average student to pay attention in a regular class, what makes you think they're going to want to learn some boring shit like tax returns?
I mean it's a good idea on paper but it falls apart when you realize teenagers are retarded and they're just going to forget half of everything they learn in the next 1-5 years anyway.
I'm sorry but your expression contains ill-defined objects. For example, the "square root of two" was proven nonexistent over two thousand years ago by Hippasus. As such the given problem does not make sense.
>it's a m/a/th thread
When a natural number is raised to the power of 0, the product is always 1. 0^0 is logically 0^0 in your explanation, but that's like saying 1=1, of course that kind of circular statement will be true no matter what. Here's the thing: we're not talking about your retarded monkey equation, we're discussing what its result is. 0^0 differs from natural numbers raised to the zeroth power because any number multiplied by 0 is still zero whereas 1 is the only number that satisfies the condition for natural numbers.
What you said is particularly insulting because not only are you dismissing the works of mathematicians as trivial, you are also demonstrating a fundamental misunderstanding of how logic works, while claiming that you understand basic logic. Embarrassing.
No kiddo, you don't understand what logic is. No, circlejerking over symbols is not logic.
>abloobloo im insulted ;cCCC
Poor little undergrad... Logic is an idol. Idols exist to be smashed.
Fucking autistic Greeks, man.
Enjoying your office job with your humanities degree?
fucking post-post-modernist shitcunts
>Prefers sig fig to irrational numbers
Now i know you're just trying to fuck with me
Tell me about Wildberger, why does he reject contemporary Math?
This explains why everyone in /sci/ is a retarded weeb shitposter.
Of course, anime is the thinking man's media.
It's actually 9/8. Look up, geometric series.