9x-7i > 3(3x-7u)=

?

Hmmm...Divide the eight....add the one....carry the two...Fourty two!

wrong

Love you too, blivvy <3

9x-7i > 3(3x-7u) = ?

3(3x-7u) < 9x-7i = ?

1 < 3, so

1(1x-7u) < 9x-7i = ?

which means:

-7u < 9x-7i = ?

-7u is clearly less than whatever the rest is, so we can just get rid of that now:

9x-7i = ?

9x = 7i

x = 7i / 9

Everyone knows that imaginary numbers are figments of some deranged mathematician's imagination, so there's no harm in just ignoring them completely. Since 7 times an imaginary number is still an imaginary number:

x = 1/9
QED (quite easily done)

Loki wrote:Love you too, blivvy <3

Heh but u didn't give any answer

Wonko the Sane wrote:9x-7i > 3(3x-7u) = ?

3(3x-7u) < 9x-7i = ?

1 < 3, so

1(1x-7u) < 9x-7i = ?

which means:

-7u < 9x-7i = ?

-7u is clearly less than whatever the rest is, so we can just get rid of that now:

9x-7i = ?

9x = 7i

x = 7i / 9

Everyone knows that imaginary numbers are figments of some deranged mathematician's imagination, so there's no harm in just ignoring them completely. Since 7 times an imaginary number is still an imaginary number:

x = 1/9
QED (quite easily done)

Eh yea idk. I suck at algebra. But you get an A+++ if you are right

Anyway the answer I was looking for was (before loki ruined it) i <3 u.

I just wanted to show that I knew the answer but still give others a chance to try too

Lol. Is i <3 u really the answer tho?

i < 3u Yeah.

9x - 7i < 3 (3x -7u)
= 9x - 7i < 9x - 21u
= -7i < -21u (canceling out the 9x)
Simplified: i < 3u
Therefore: I love you. It's a pretty nerdy chatup line that I found years ago

Mr.Fjord wrote:Hmmm...Divide the eight....add the one....carry the two...Fourty two!

Best proof ever.

Wonko the Sane wrote:
QED (quite easily done)

I don't think that's what that is

KaiStagon wrote:

Wonko the Sane wrote:
QED (quite easily done)

I don't think that's what that is

I'm pretty sure it's foreign for as was demonstrated.

Quick
Erratic
Ducklings

Quick
Efficient
Drooling

Listen people, as a twice graduated alumni of the fine arts association of disassociated mathematics haters and regressive physical disproofs by law of denaturing the pudding until sanity happens, I think I know a thing or two about proofs and how to quite easily do them.

I'm ready for question number two!

Explain to the guy doing Maths at University how the hell failed so much at that bit of algebra?

Because algebra is a lie! Everything they taught you in Algebra class is imaginary, just like the imaginary i that Wonko so eloquently described.

Solve this problem, Wonko:



And when you're done with that one, solve this:




And this!:




...and this:






And, finally, a little bit of this:
Solve/find general solution

y^,, + y = tan x.

(looked in the back of an old calc textbook for that last one...don't ask me how to do it only got up to calc 1....

The answer to the first problem is the second problem. The third and fourth problems are mutually exclusive and therefore can be said not to exist.

As for the last one:
y,, + y = tan x

Everybody knows that two why's equals a really annoying little child that makes for an awesome cartoon:


Since pale children don't tan so easily in the sun, it can be said that a child wishing to get out of the sun as quickly as possible would put her "x" in the center of the tic-tac-toe board, as this is the most obvious opening move and presents multiple opportunities for winning.

Thusly, we can see that the proportion of why's to tans and X's and O's is invariably reduced to one simple truth:

QED (quite easily done)

...Fuzzy bunny!

Be vewy vewy quiet...

I lol'd so hard when I saw that the first time. Never the same the second time around