Posted April 12, 2018
nightcraw1er.488
Pale & Bitter
nightcraw1er.488 Sorry, data for given user is currently unavailable. Please, try again later. View profile View wishlist Start conversation Invite to friends Invite to friends Accept invitation Accept invitation Pending invitation... Unblock chat Registered: Apr 2012
From United Kingdom
Lifthrasil
Bring the GOG-Downloader back!
Lifthrasil Sorry, data for given user is currently unavailable. Please, try again later. View profile View wishlist Start conversation Invite to friends Invite to friends Accept invitation Accept invitation Pending invitation... Unblock chat Registered: Apr 2011
From Germany
Posted April 12, 2018
Lifthrasil: Well, you could disregard the q>p. Then both of them can only be 2 and in fact can only be 2, with 2 being the oddest prime, because it's the only one that's not odd. That makes p-q automatically 0, which is even (by all common definitions).
paladin181: Why do we disregard negative integers? 2>-2. Since negative integers aren't larger than 1, they can't be prime by definition.
dtgreene
vaccines work she/her
dtgreene Sorry, data for given user is currently unavailable. Please, try again later. View profile View wishlist Start conversation Invite to friends Invite to friends Accept invitation Accept invitation Pending invitation... Unblock chat Registered: Jan 2010
From United States
Posted April 12, 2018
Here's another proof I came up with, in which I prove that i (the square root of -1) is a real number.
Suppose x is real. Then x is either 0 or not 0. If x is 0, sqrt(x) is clearly 0, which is a real number.
Now, if x != 0, then either x > 0 or x < 0. Without loss of generality, take x > 0 (in other words, x is positive). Since x is positive, it has 2 square roots, both real.
Hence, since x is either 0 or not 0, x must clearly have a real square root.
Now that we've established that every real x has at least one real square root, we let x = -1; hence, we conclude that -1 must have a real square root. Hence, i, the square root of -1, must be real.
QED.
Suppose x is real. Then x is either 0 or not 0. If x is 0, sqrt(x) is clearly 0, which is a real number.
Now, if x != 0, then either x > 0 or x < 0. Without loss of generality, take x > 0 (in other words, x is positive). Since x is positive, it has 2 square roots, both real.
Hence, since x is either 0 or not 0, x must clearly have a real square root.
Now that we've established that every real x has at least one real square root, we let x = -1; hence, we conclude that -1 must have a real square root. Hence, i, the square root of -1, must be real.
QED.
PoppyAppletree
"New" "User"
PoppyAppletree Sorry, data for given user is currently unavailable. Please, try again later. View profile View wishlist Start conversation Invite to friends Invite to friends Accept invitation Accept invitation Pending invitation... Unblock chat Registered: Jan 2010
From Other
TRUMP MUST F U C K I N G HANG
Find me in STEAM OT
TRUMP MUST F U C K I N G HANG Sorry, data for given user is currently unavailable. Please, try again later. View profile View wishlist Start conversation Invite to friends Invite to friends Accept invitation Accept invitation Pending invitation... Unblock chat Registered: Dec 2012
From Other
Posted July 24, 2018
6 + 4 + 3 = 2
Lets see how long it takes someone to get that....WITHOUT GOOGLE! ::P
I know damn well no one in Arlington, Philadelphia, or St. Louis is going to get it.
Lets see how long it takes someone to get that....WITHOUT GOOGLE! ::P
I know damn well no one in Arlington, Philadelphia, or St. Louis is going to get it.
Post edited July 24, 2018 by tinyE
Jinh_Molton
New User
Jinh_Molton Sorry, data for given user is currently unavailable. Please, try again later. View profile View wishlist Start conversation Invite to friends Invite to friends Accept invitation Accept invitation Pending invitation... Unblock chat Registered: Oct 2012
From Other
Posted July 24, 2018
OneFiercePuppy: I know everyone knows it, but I still like the proof that 1 = 2. Start by taking two values which are equal to each other, A and B.
B = A then multiply both sides by A
AB = A^2 then subtract B squared from both sides
AB - B^2 = A^2 - B^2 Reduce the expression
B(A-B) = (A+B) (A-B) Cancel out the like elements
B = A+B Since A equals B, restate
B = 2B Divide by B
1 = 2
The assumption is A=B. A-B=0. B = A then multiply both sides by A
AB = A^2 then subtract B squared from both sides
AB - B^2 = A^2 - B^2 Reduce the expression
B(A-B) = (A+B) (A-B) Cancel out the like elements
B = A+B Since A equals B, restate
B = 2B Divide by B
1 = 2
B(A-B) = (A+B) (A-B) Cancel out the like elements
Division by 0.
Post edited July 24, 2018 by Arundir
dtgreene
vaccines work she/her
dtgreene Sorry, data for given user is currently unavailable. Please, try again later. View profile View wishlist Start conversation Invite to friends Invite to friends Accept invitation Accept invitation Pending invitation... Unblock chat Registered: Jan 2010
From United States
Posted July 24, 2018
tinyE: 6 + 4 + 3 = 2
Lets see how long it takes someone to get that....WITHOUT GOOGLE! ::P
I know damn well no one in Arlington, Philadelphia, or St. Louis is going to get it.
Well, that statement *is* true modulo 11 (or modulo any factor of 11, not that you have much choice in the matter here).\ Lets see how long it takes someone to get that....WITHOUT GOOGLE! ::P
I know damn well no one in Arlington, Philadelphia, or St. Louis is going to get it.
Here's another one:
To fairly divide a pizza between 2 people, one person cuts the pizza, and the other one chooses a side to take.
To fairly divide a pizza between 1 person, that person "cuts" the pizza, and then chooses one out of the one pizzas.
How do you fairly divide a pizza between 0 people?
(By the way, dividing a pizza between 3 or more pizzas can't be done this easily, particularly if you adopt the (reasonable) rule that any person't portion of the pizza must be in a single slice, and no part of the pizza can go unclaimed.)
TRUMP MUST F U C K I N G HANG
Find me in STEAM OT
TRUMP MUST F U C K I N G HANG Sorry, data for given user is currently unavailable. Please, try again later. View profile View wishlist Start conversation Invite to friends Invite to friends Accept invitation Accept invitation Pending invitation... Unblock chat Registered: Dec 2012
From Other
Posted July 24, 2018
tinyE: 6 + 4 + 3 = 2
Lets see how long it takes someone to get that....WITHOUT GOOGLE! ::P
I know damn well no one in Arlington, Philadelphia, or St. Louis is going to get it.
dtgreene: Well, that statement *is* true modulo 11 (or modulo any factor of 11, not that you have much choice in the matter here).\ Lets see how long it takes someone to get that....WITHOUT GOOGLE! ::P
I know damn well no one in Arlington, Philadelphia, or St. Louis is going to get it.
Here's another one:
To fairly divide a pizza between 2 people, one person cuts the pizza, and the other one chooses a side to take.
To fairly divide a pizza between 1 person, that person "cuts" the pizza, and then chooses one out of the one pizzas.
How do you fairly divide a pizza between 0 people?
(By the way, dividing a pizza between 3 or more pizzas can't be done this easily, particularly if you adopt the (reasonable) rule that any person't portion of the pizza must be in a single slice, and no part of the pizza can go unclaimed.)
blotunga
GrumpyOldGamers.CyringOutMiserably
blotunga Sorry, data for given user is currently unavailable. Please, try again later. View profile View wishlist Start conversation Invite to friends Invite to friends Accept invitation Accept invitation Pending invitation... Unblock chat Registered: Apr 2012
From Other
Posted July 24, 2018
Late to the party but: The sequence 2, 4, 6, 10, 14, 22, 26, 34, 38, ... (OEIS A001747) consisting of the number 2 together with the primes multiplied by 2 is sometimes also called the even primes, since these are the even numbers n=2k that are divisible by just 1, 2, k, and 2k. From here.
Anyway proof is really simple. Let's say we have 2 "even primes", p = 2k, q = 2l. So naturally q - p = 2l - 2k, resulting q - p = 2 (l -k) thus m-n is even.
Anyway proof is really simple. Let's say we have 2 "even primes", p = 2k, q = 2l. So naturally q - p = 2l - 2k, resulting q - p = 2 (l -k) thus m-n is even.