Submitted by: Drew via Submission Page
-
-
-
Copy & paste this:
« Previous I Hope He Did A Good Job | Plagiarism Fail Next »
« Previous I Hope He Did A Good Job | Plagiarism Fail Next »
Submitted by: Drew via Submission Page
Now that’s just impressively embarrassing.
SECOND!!!
LOL @ the circular logic in the response. He used (Study = Pass) in his assumptions and went on to “prove” (Study = Pass). Logical Fallacy Fail.
The actual reason that it doesn’t work is he’s trying to use mathematical algebra when he should be using logical algebra. Let’s restate it:
~Study = Fail
Study = ~Fail
If you OR them together, you get a tautology, which says “If you study or don’t study you’ll either fail or don’t fail”, which doesn’t tell you anything, since it’s a tautology. You can reverse them (which is valid, since it’s an equivalence) and OR them together, which says “If you don’t study or don’t fail, you either study or fail”, but eliminating the logical impossibilities, since you can’t have both a proposition and it’s opposite be true, you just end up right back where you started with the original statements.
You can AND them together as is, you get a logical impossibility on both ends for the reason stated above. If you reverse them before you do, which again is valid since they’re equivalences, you get “If you don’t study, you fail and if you study, you don’t fail” which is the exact opposite of his conclusion and states the obvious.
Looks like everyone in that set of responses fails for not understanding basic first order logic.
Yes. This.
The response didn’t use circular logic, it used unnecessary steps. His assumption wasn’t that Study = Pass, it was that Pass = No Fail and Fail = No Pass, and then he inserted those into the equations of the original post.
In the end, he uses the same logic you do, just with a bunch of steps in the middle where the contradiction is obvious before he actually presents it.
*high fives* Well done.
You might friend…just wrote a lot of unnecessary garbage.
u lost me after LOL
That’s a major Geek burn. X)
-awards the last post five internets-
Ah!
This is why I love maths!
You can’t cheat on maths!
Yawn! lol Boffin humour!
Daaaaamnit. I believe, sir, you just got owned.
Geeks rock lol
now if no study is the opposite of study, wouldnt no study + study=(-1+1)study, therefore being 0=0? and prove nothing?
The problem with that is (No + 1) = 0 so you divide by zero and that cause the formula to go nuts
i do know of some kids that use the word “studying” as code for getting high and etc.
they just facepalmed each other… those funny geeks *sigh*!
I don’t get why the second guy thinks he can start out with the assumption that [study=pass]. He started out directly with a contradiction of the initial solution.
that was amazing!!! Q.E.MUTHAF**KING.D!!!!!!!!!!!
^^^how to spot virgins^^^^ lolol
^^^how to spot losers^^^^ “lolol”
Says the person who’s name is python.
and that could be a rap ” Q to tha E and a MOTHAF**KIN D. Droppin straight knowledge all up on yo street. schoolin yall homes, with math matic expression, and then curb stomp till yo face leaves an impression” WORD!
Okay, I REALLY REALLY loved that.
No, it really couldn’t be a rap.
Shut up…
I love you XDDDD
lulz and what not.
Will you have my babies?
lol
Do you reckon that last guys owns all the star trek series too? I am betting yes!
You would lose that bet.
lol owned
Ah, I love Math.
Math geeks rule!
The end of the last comment really seals the deal. It was just a wild nerd battle until the last word, then I nearly fell out of the chair laughing! Well done.
Wild nerds are far more dangerous than tame ones. I once saw a couple of wild nerds fight over a graphing calculator – that was some intense s**t. You won’t see anything like that in the nerd exhibit at the zoo.
^ THIS
Hahaha, Ja just got owned!!
whata f**k dude!
don’t understand
it’s just wierd to talk about it =S
“Q.E.MUTHAFUKIN-D” lol, gotta love it. pwnage.
But if pass = no fail, then transitively no pass = fail. Using the same calculations, pass = fail, QED.
….
um, no. not at all.
actually, the assumption is that No Study and Study obey the associative property, not commutative. and ACTUALLY actually, the assumption is the the word joining operation is associative, not the words themselves. just sayin people, basic group theory.
… You’re saying English language isn’t a group with the word joining operation? Blasphemy!
Really, he used all three assumptions( commutative, associative, and word order). You’ll notice that while factoring he switched the order of “fail” and “no fail” to have “(No +1)Fail” at the end.
And finally, this:
Maths: it IS serious business
Study = Pass = Fail…
so basically means that studying doesnt matter (I assume that it’s the ass sucking that does the passing then…)
go on then and get a beer @ the pub..
NERD ALERT!
You killed it plasket. This was hilarious tho.
How about (No Study + Cheat) = Pass?
It’s closer to
P(pass) = (Study + Wake up on time + Omega 3 consumption)/Hangover^2
I agree
Steve D wins
Don’t know… let’s wait until some nerd finds out if that works and then we copy
I think Ja— must be this guy’s less successful cousin;
http://www-users.cs.york.ac.uk/susan/joke/exoendo.htm
What if (No + 1) = 0? Then you can’t cancel.
Based on these results, I’m pretty sure No = -1, i.e. No Study = -Study, etc.
I think the primary problem here is that he intertwined the two material implications so that S*~S>~F*F, which no law of formal logic gives us based on (S>~F)*(~S>F).
I don’t see how he got from [(No study= fail) + (Study = No fail)] to the first line.
In this case, No = -1 in order as a contradictory statement so the final step of the proof contains a zero-divisor. Therefore, you haven’t said anything, just proved that 2 unequal things are equal when u don’t actually care what they are equal to. Good deduction, bad induction.
Lol, the guy who posted the second comment is such an arrogant bastard
the second comment? same as the OP
Nah, that’s the OP, who’s referring to the first comment that said “You fail”. Hence his answer, which his so-called calculation was all about; “because I studied [I failed]“.
How could (x=y)+(a=b) give any reasonable outcome? And how can you then change it to (x+a)=(y+b)? And wouldn’t (No Study + Study) equal to ((-1)*Study + (1)*Study) resulting in (-1+1)Study equaling 0*Study? How could you then get rid of the brackets besides dividing by zero (BAD IDEA!!!)?
OWNED!
yeah i never study for tests and i get well in the 90′s and when i do study i get a failing grade (to me failing is 85 below)
It’s quite obvious that No = -1 in this sense.
The problem with the proof is that he eliminates the equivocating factor, being the (No + 1). Since, in this context, no is representing the opposite, No is equivalent to negative one, therefore within the brackets equals zero, which makes the two sides equal. Once this factor is eliminated, the two side are not necessarily equal. Like saying that (0)(2) = (0)(3) means 2=3.
That and the addition at the beginning is completely arbitrary.
His equation is actually correct for study = fail and no = 1.
But then if you follow the logic of translating multiplying a word by no (1) than there is no difference between no sth and sth.
when i read this i imagine the poster talking like ralph wiggum… he said maths.
Um. That’s what they call it in the UK. In the US, the abbreviation for “mathematics” is “math”, while in the UK it’s “maths”, which is logical (at least as far as any abbreviations are logical) because “mathematics” is a natural plural.
Not to be picky, but teeeechnically mathematics is an uncount noun, just like athletics. That being said, despite living in Canada (where math is primarily used), maths really is a more logical abbreviation.
Actually, having said that, uncount nouns use a singular verb tense, so really math makes more sense as an abbreviation, a phrase such as “Math is fun!” sounds more natural than “Maths is fun!”. Or maybe it just seems that way to me because I grew up with the abbreviation math.
but mathemathic is one subject, unless you referred to addmath.science math, bla bla math and so on….
but he already explained why it works
No, it’s always mathematics, because it’s the various forms.
how bout grammar?
GrammarS?!?
when you find someone who claims to be a ‘grammartician’, then you can use that example. different words have different endings… its a language people like to refer to as English… guess where it came from…. also….. if your saying that you have “mathematic next period”, i think you really need to find that grammartician.
As an American student who uses the proper terminology… I am ashamed in my peers for being ignorant of their own language. I hereby apologize to any British readers having to argue with idiots who believe that “mathematic” is a subject to be taught in school.
To further explain to the those idiots, it is mathematics (with an S) because mathematics refers to all fields of maths, such as calculus, algebra, geometry, etc. But right now, I encourage you to study English. Not maths.
They need a velvet rope up in front of the Facebook nightclub.
it would seem to me that the opposite of no fail is fail thus
no fail + fail = 0
no fail = -fail
no = -1
now we can see that (no + 1) = 0 thus in order to reach study = fail you divided by 0.
Therefore no matter what you do, you fail.
Q.E.D.
I felt like I had to comment on this being a nerdy and all…. lol. The problem with the formula is that you use associative property when that property does not apply to inverses.
!Study = Fail, & Study = !Fail
if you add the two equations you get
!Study + Study = !Fail + Fail. X + !X = 1(aka true)
therefore you get
1=1
if STUDY is 1*STUDY… then NO STUDY is actually -1*STUDY. So (NO+1) = 0, and canceling (NO+1) would be dividing by zero. o_O
well actually that wasnt really a burn because he changed the value of the equation. you cant change the value of the equation and then say that your assuming that the equation is correct because then you literally going in circles. but then again i dont study and pass so..muahahahahahahahaha
Haha this status appeared on my fb newsfeed after our calc final! Gota love Columbia’s geekiness!
w00t Columbia FTW
Last time I checked, it was Columbia getting owned and POMONA FTW!
MAJOR PWNAGE
First, the original set of equations contain a contradiction without any extra work. One of the initial assumptions is that Study = No Fail, and then we “prove” that Study = Fail. Transitivity tells us that we then have Fail = No Fail, which is a contradiction.
Second, the QED is always last, after the conclusion.
actually…. if I study, I fail… if I don’t study, I pass with flying colors… go figure.
They got it all wrong!
this is a logic-ism based proof!
After all Fail does not imply a no study, and a pass does not imply study. We’ve all passed a course without studying, so this is the 3 statements, since we assume classical logic, and we either study, or do not study:
~: not, S: Study, F: Fail, P: Pass,
~S -> F S -> P
————————-
F P ~S Or S
——————————————–
F or P
Concluding that, if we either study or not study, we can fail or pass…
Meaning nothing has changed what we already knew…
Whatever you do, it is still mostly unpredictable…
(my Ex was a mathematician, had to bulk up when there was some dispute with logic… :S)
Actually, it’s because No = -1, so both of them are dividing by zero, both of them fail.
Also the premise that ‘Study = No Fail’ is debatable.
Aside from the assumption of commutativity, Ja failed for one very simple reason. Let’s abstract this a bit with
studying = x.
Since not studying is the opposite of studying, let
not studying = -x.
Similarly, let
fail=y
not fail=-y.
From there it’s clear to see that
x-x=y-y
=> (1-1)x = (1-1)y
=> 0x=0y.
And so since division by zero is undefined, he receives his error.
But if the second guy states that
Pass = No Fail,
shouldn’t
Fail = Pass/No
instead od
Fail = No Pass?
anyway, we can assume that ‘No’ is an additive inverse operator, aka -1. so he just divided by zero. (No + 1)
To take it another way:
Substitute the first line into the second:
No No Fail = Fail
No² = 1
No = 1 or -1
Now, clearly the option of “No = 1″ is at odds with the definition of the word, so we’ll assume No = -1.
Now, that means when the poster divided both sides of his equation by (No+1), they were actually dividing by zero.
Remember, kids: ab=ac -> b=c or a=0. Ignoring that second part is the path to brokenness.
Technically my own proof falls into that as it divides both sides by Fail, so the next like should read “No² = 1 or Fail = 0″… the complete space of all solutions, mathematically, to the stated equations is the union of three lines:
* Fail = Study = 0; No is unrestricted
* Fail = Study; No = 1
* Fail = -Study; No = -1
Actually No = 1
Initial Equation
No Study = Fail
Study = No Fail per Symmetric Property No Fail = Study
So
(No Study = Fail)
+ (No Fail = Study)
————————
No Study + No Fail = Fail + Study
No(Study + Fail) = (Study + Fail)
No = 1
Proof by contradiction, facebook style. Nice. I think that’s something I’d do, except I wouldn’t have thought of the last line.
Well played sir.
Indeed, the main fault is the beginning. The “+” in “(no study = fail) + (study=fail)” does not make any sense (what is the sum of two assumptions?).
So Ja deduced a nonsense conclusion from an undefined expression.
A correct assumption would be “(no study = fail) AND (study=fail)” and it’s onvious that you can’t get a nonsense conclusion from that.
Yes, I am bored a little bit. Why do you ask?
i still don’t understand math…
No, MATHS is more logical because its (math)ematic(s). You don’t call grammar grammars because grammar isn’t short for anything else thats plural.
DERP
I solved math:
(No study = Facebook)
+ (Study = No facebook)
—————————–
(No Study + Study) = (Facebook + No Facebook)
-> (No + 1)Study = (No + 1)Facebook
Q.E.D. (Study = Facebook)
that would actually
study^-1 = fail
study = fail^-1
1/study = fail
study = 1/fail
so these are just different ways to represent the same thing
The problem is that dividing by (No + 1) on both sides is illegal since you must prior to that exclude the case that you are dividing by zero. And we know only Chuck Norris can divide by zero.
Especially if we agree that No = -1, we see that what the equation says is “0 = 0″ which is rather trivial and doesn’t tell anything about the relation between study and fail.
Cmon people, this is simple math..
(Ja) is inevitably correct.
He starts by explaining…..
(No Study = Fail) X (Study = No Fail) which is equivalent to…..
(No Study X Study) = (Fail x No Fail). Then precisely divide both sides by the word (No).
Which then results in (Study x Study) = (Fail x Fail)
The result simplified = 2Study = 2Fail
Afterword.. Divide both sides by 2.
Leaving you with the prominent result Study = Fail.
Although the retarded algebra is completely logical to the fullest extent, you should take into consideration another equation.
(Facebook + Homework) = (Fail)
Students of mine consider this a tedious theory, but let me prove to you that this is wrong.
Facebook + Homework = Fail. Then divide both sides with the letter Fa.
cebook + Homework = il. The (i) presented in this equation is an imaginary number, aka = -1.
cebook + homework = -L Then you detonate the entire question, leaving you with…
Book + Homework = -Love/Crappy education.
3*3 !=2*3
So if
(Study)^2 =(Fail)^2 then
Study = +/- Fail.
So at last we come to the grand truth. If you study, you’ll either pass, or you will fail.
discrete mathematics ftw
Actually it’s logic.
And this is another case of referring to self – see Bertrand Paradox.
I love these people.
divide by zero=solved
Actually, it’s screwed up from the beginning.
(No Study)=Fail and Study=(No Fail)
Study=(Fail-No) and Study=No+Fail
Study=(-No+Fail) and Study=No+Fail
*Law of substitution*
-No+Fail=No+Fail
Fail=2*No+Fail
0=2*No
No=0
Therefore, taking our original set of equations:
Study=No+Fail and No Study=Fail
Study=Fail and Study=Fail
However, the “No” in front of Fail in (Study=No+Fail) implies that Study=/=Fail
Ergo, Study=Fail and Study=/=Fail
False.
Q.E.D.
This actually isn’t logical at all therefor it isn’t a valid arguement.
Study is a really weird looking word when you write it that many times. . .
hahaha It is… I’m getting dizzy, in fact…
I hate this stuff. Geometry, right? Proofs n stuff. I could go kill myself right now. Yeah… that’ll work.
This discussion involves a lot of people not getting laid
Actually, he hasn’t failed. He’s only invoked the principle of explosion. Now ANYTHING is possible!
These people have WAY too much math on their hands.
i didnt read the past comments so im not sure if this was said but technically his equation is correct because he is using 2 opposing variables making it a good statement and the third comment down is using a different variable in turn just making another equivalent to study. So Kudos on the equation
Holy crap I know the people who posted this all, this is hilarious.
win
I don’t believe that the distributive property applies here.
How to keep your virginity
This simple lazy boy has sparked a wholly illogical debate .. what is the probability he will pass anything other than water? … Most enjoyable nonsense Q.E.muthaf*ckinD. lol
He divided by zero because No = -1
instead of wasting time working that out why not just STUDY SOME F**KING MATHS!
The mistake is to suppose that No study=Fail and Study=No Fail. As long as this equation gets some logical inconsistences such as Study=Fail=NO Fail, we can assume the first equality is not true. The only case It’d be true is if we supposed that [No=-1] and Study=Fail=0. As long as study or fail are something (so they’re no zero), Study is not equal to Fail, and the first equality gets wrong.
Conclusion: You can’t express real life mathematically.
No=-1, so you are dividing both sides by 0.
Look at this:
set x=0
2x=3x
2=3
NO
his problem is that he took (No study) which is ONE variable and he took both separate words and divided them, That’s like taking 12 and separating it into 1 and 2 as separate variables. No study is one things, 2 words, but one thing
uhm, lol WUT. :O
kamo rai gi buang anah!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
kamo rai gi buang anah!!!!!!!!!wahahahahaha