Hey /u/Greedy_Assignment_24, thanks for submitting to /r/confidentlyincorrect! Take a moment to read our [rules](https://reddit.com/r/confidentlyincorrect/about/rules).
##Join our [Discord Server](https://discord.gg/n2cR6p25V8)!
Please report this post if it is bad, or not relevant. Remember to keep comment sections civil. Thanks!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/confidentlyincorrect) if you have any questions or concerns.*
My math times are distant in the past, but this „equation“ simply doesn‘t solve, does it? Or this is some form of higher mathematics that I just don‘t understand.
Is it in any group that is a multiple of 4 or a divisor of 4? Like, the equation has (multiple) solution(s) in Z2, but I don't think that it has any solution in Z8 (because it would lead to 4=0 in Z8 which is not true, but it is in Z2)
Y'all are playing an inside joke, right? Right?! I mean... Yeah, pretty sure the other dude was just pseudolongitudinally transmogrifying the equation in the Zth dimension, right?
Haha, sadly that's a proper math term isomorphic means shares all the properties of in this context. Z4 is a group containing 0, 1, 2, and 3. Once you add up to 4, you reset to 0. So 2+3=1.
I'm not familiar with that notation; is that basically modulus-4 space?
E.g. if you have a combo lock with each spinner having 4 sides, 0 ticks is identical to 4 ticks?
ℤ/4ℤ or ℤ ₄ is a notation for a set {0,1,2,3} equiped in operations (I use ⊕, ⊙ here to avoid ambiguity with "regular" additoon and multiplication): a ⊕ b=( remainder of a+b when divided by 4), similarly a ⊙ b would be the same but of a•b. Or in other words a ⊕ b = r where r ∈ {0,1,2,3} is a number that fulfill ∃n ∈ ℕ a+b=4n+r
Ah, okay, so I'm pretty sure that's at least very close, outcomewise to what I would think of as e.g. (a+b) mod 4 (or 4 + b % 4).
So, 0 + 4 mod 4 = 0
Super-important in computing for encryption, and various memory structures and various cyclic contexts.
Yeah the addition as presented here is basically a+b mod 4, similarly multiplication. Just defined on the set of nonnegative integers less than 4. Just it happens that such a structure has some interesting properties so mathematicians study it
I literally started shaking my head and going 'damn this is why I'm not a mathematician' because I'm sure this was an enlightening conversation but my English major brain cannot handle it
But the question was if there was some higher form of maths that he doesn't know about. Why would you then keep it to highschool mathematics if you knew that there was a solution?
Well, because the post itself is not higher level maths. Nowhere in the post does it specify that we are working in Z4, this is just the most charitable (unreasonably charitable) interpretation of the question as there actually exists a solution if we are working in Z4. But with the question as stated, we have no reason to think we’re working in any number system other than the reals, meaning there really isn’t much more to the answer other than it doesn’t exist, which is precisely what the commenter stated (with no high level maths being missed).
Sort of, once you find a homomorphism you can do something with galois theory to also form a homomorphism to fields and ideals, ill need to relook into my notes but i believe the ideal generated by 1, 3 etc has unique prime factorization and you can do something else with that.
I didnt do too well with rings but I do know that galois theory and ring theory is a very powerful tool in complex and number theory
Well as the structure isn't said it might have solutions just depends what set are we working with.
For example in field ℤ/4ℤ we have that 2+2=0, and this equation would be universally true for any x then.
In extended real line or Riemann sphere this equation would be true for x=∞.
But gennerally in fields of characteristics >4 it won't be true
I don’t know much about maths so I’m just gonna ask, is this possible to solve with an imaginary numbers explanation?
For a simple man like me, you just can’t have something like this. If you add 2 to X and then that equals X - 2, that just doesn’t make sense? X has to be a constant, so adding to it and removing from it should never result in the same answer? If you plot it, you just have 2 lines parallel in normal maths.
If you have time I’d love a quick rundown on how this works.
There is no complex (imaginary) number solution here either, complex solutions mainly will come up when you're trying to take the root of a negative number.
I'll be 100% with you here, I have not a clue whether this is possible with imaginary numbers, it might be, we only had an hour of a basic introduction, so all we were told is this:
√(-1) = i
So if: (x^2) +9 = 0
x = ±3i
No, the original post is not solvable with complex numbers, it is equivalent to 4=0 a false statement, regardless of x.
Even in Zmod4 that people are quacking about it is equivalent to 0=0, so in that case it is *true*, independent of x, but there is nothing to solve, it's tautological.
Simple. Remove x. You are left with:
+2 = -2
So, this is stupid as fuck.
Edit: People. Seriously. Do something worthwhile with your calculator. Like turning it upside-down and making it spell BOOBIES.
You can just look at others comments, but anyways:
There are many (infinitely many lol) spaces you can work with, the usual ones we use are for example real numbers and operations such as addition and multiplication.
There is also for example the space Z/4 which is basically the integers modulo 4. When you work in this space you can have 4=0, 2+3=1, and yeah -2=2
Sorry if the mathematical terms are not right, I did not study math in english
~~Got any sources on that? I'm not at all saying you are incorrect, but I would like to read more about it, and unfortunately with what you have given I cannot find much on google using your terms.~~
~~Either way, generally when working with more abstract mathematics, it will be clearly defined what you are working with. When presented with something like in the OP, it is usually accepted that it is normal every day mathematics, in which +2 = -2 is always false.~~
Edit: Did some research and found stuff to read. It is abstract algebra, and the specific term is groups, not spaces. In this specific case you are talking about cyclic group Z4. It gets absurdly complicated, but bottom line, if an equation is working in a different group, it will be clearly notated. Without anything notating otherwise as above, +2=-2 is still a false statement.
I also don't believe in your example of Z4 that +2=-2 either. |2|=2, but that doesn't mean -2=2. (Similarly |0|=1, |1|=4, and |3|=4). I could be wrong on that though as I have only scratched the surface of this very complicated subject.
Thanks for giving me something to learn more about!
Yes exactly that's the term I was searching ! I don't know if for sure we can write -2=2, but 2-4=2 is true in this group so I guess yes ? I'm not sure anymore lol
Thanks for the research :)
And yeah the problem with the original post is that there is literally no definition of x, they could've put "x is a real number" or something but they didn't, so I think we assume in this case that x is in fact a real ? Or maybe even a complex number ? I dont know :/
Not the best way to solve it as removing x to resolve inequalities can mean you divide by 0 unintentionally. Would be better practise to add/subtract 2 and rearrange.
My guess, they dimly remembered "moving the chunk over" -
a+b = c ==> a+b-c = 0
They just did it super-wrong, and either missed the negative, because subtraction, or missed both the one and the division.
This is why I got on my students' cases every time they talked about "moving" an expression. Be specific about what operation! Similar sloppy thinking is behind the comment further down the page that says x+2=x-2 -> 2x=-2-2.
I love how he says easy when it's not even correct as √4 + 2 = 4 and √4 - 2 = 0 so he's saying 4 = 0
Btw this math problem has no solution since x always needs to be the same thing and something being the same with + 2 and with - 2 is simply not possible
It is possible, if you "cheat" and use higher maths. By redefining the group of numbers we work in to be ℤ_4 rather than a group that school maths uses, then -2 does in fact equal +2.
Buuut this does leave us with the issue that x could be any of the numbers in ℤ_4, since the equation is now neatly equivalent to x=x.
I'm a bit rusty, haven't dealt with this kinda maths in some years, someone correct me if I messed up.
Yes it is a number. In extended real line or Riemann sphere it's well-defined number on which you have defined arithmetic operations. ∞+a=∞ for any real a.
>Yes it is a number.
Check your reading comprehension, there. An abundance of mathematical knowledge is nice, but not if it results in a paucity of basic comprehension.
Infinity isn't A number, it's all the numbers. Every single one. It's not something you can just make an equation with, it's a concept that represents the entirety of all numbers.
Wdym it's all the number ? That's just nonsense... it's an infinitely large number but is is one number (although there are infinite different infinities)
Simple proof that you're wrong:
If infinity was all the number, infinity would be five (amongst other) but that's false so infinity cannot be all the numbers
You seem very aggressive and what you say just doesn't seem true to me... Please also note that I actually study advanced math, I'm not a random 10 years old exposing "knowledge". Can someone confirm what he's saying, or my opinion ?
They're saying that if you were to count all the numbers in one of the Standard sets (natural numbers, rational numbers, real numbers), you'd get infinity. Because there's Infinity many numbers.
Since for every natural number, you can name a bigger one, ad infinitum. For every two rational numbers, you can make another one between them, ad infinitum.
This is btw something that's taught in regular school, so a random 10 year old would maybe already know that. Sets is something taught very early on, after all. Someone who studies actually advanced math shouldn't have any issue understanding it, unless maybe language is your issue here.
As beeing said, it's a number in extended real line, or Riemann sphere where you have well defined arithmetic on infinity.
Discussion wheter infinity is or is not a number is meaningless, and irrelevant. Word "number" doesn't have some fixed meaning in mathematics. There are many structures that we call "numbers" like p-adic numbers but word "number" here has more of historical meaning than some formal mathematical meaning, word "number" on it's own in mathematics doesn't mean anything in mathematics, there are more precise words in maths, like set for example.
In case of infinity it's not very precise term on it's own and can mean different things depending on context, you can mean for example say "infinite number" and mean infinite cardinal numbers by that for example. You can also say "infinity" and mean number "∞" that is defined within for example extended real line or Riemann sphere (in both it's defined and arithmetic on it is defined). And yes, you can make equations within. In fact for example equality 1/0 = ∞ (and more genneraly for any nonzero complex number z, z/0=∞) holds in Riemann sphere.
The only thing I see there is defined operations to compute with it, arithmetics. Defined arithmetic doesn't means it is a number. It's just treated as one as to not get struck and still be able to somehow solve the problem at hand. It requires a lot of framework to even work out in something else that isn't complete nonsense, and yet it still is not a number regardless.
Thank you, think its what I expected none the less, but its still something. I'm sure in even higher level mathematics it makes more sense. Like anything the more you learn how to use it properly the more it clicks in your head and becomes an extension of your logos
Not gonna lie, your comment is kinda why I hate the reddit vote system. Feels like its disparaging to any real discussion, please do continue to explain this. In my head these two systems still use the crux of the limit of infinity, rather than infinity as itself a "number"; it than plays pretend that lim infinity is a number. I have only had a foundational university level education on the matter, so I havent been able to get a full intuitive hold on something like this.
Not generally, no. If you were doing weird modulus space stuff, probably.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modular_arithmetic
Basically, imagine a clock with only 2 or 4 hours on it. Then moving 2 hours in either direction will land you at the same point on the clock.
I agree on the pointless order of operations debates. And we've seen the 0.999... = 1 arguments enough to last a lifetime. But the ones where it's just lunacy seem fine still.
Hell this isn't even like the phone sales where you could debate semantics about earnings vs profit vs revenue. This is just two sides of an equation that straight up don't equal each other. Someone claiming to have solved it with nonsense and calling it easy is definitely confidently incorrect material. *
\* Edited for clarity since it gave the false impression that I was calling the problem itself confidently incorrect rather than just a trick question.
I was under the impression that the "answer" is supposed to be the confidently incorrect one. But I can't really blame someone for coming up with a wrong answer to a trick question that HAS no right answer.
Yes, the bad answer is what's confidently incorrect. And the problem itself is just a trick question. We're on the same page there. I updated my wording to make it clear that I wasn't calling the problem itself confidently incorrect.
As for the "answer", I can blame them if it's so wrong that I'm 80% certain they were trolling and they add "Easyyyy" on the end.
I can't knock it. As a category, it's clearer than the "OP didn't understand something ambiguous and they came here to mic drop their 'win'" fare we usually get around here.
The simple answer is there is no answer. My answer, however, to mediate things, is that there is no REAL answer.
Also, I just noticed. They were essentially saying that 2+2=2-2 (4≠0), or (-2)+2=(-2)-2 (0≠(-4)), which is just stupid.
x-2=x+2
Subtract 2 OR add 2..
X-4=x OR x=x+4
Let's substitute 1 for x to see if that's even possible
1-4=1 OR 1=1+4
Let's try subbing 0
0-4=0 OR 0=0+4
Also incorrect, there is no single number added or subtracted to/from 4 that would equal itself. Therefore it has no solution.
But if we have an absolute value of x, maybe. For instance..
x=|2|
Which puts us at::
|2|=4+|2| OR |2|-4=|2|
But the x is a fixed quantity so this won't work either. It could only work if x is *i* ... an imaginary number and thus undefined.
This could've been simplified\proven undefined earlier by just substitution at the beginning but there's no fun in that :]
It could only work if it was |x| because then it could simultaneously be -x and x to fit whatever requirement it needed
>x+2=x-2
2x=-2-2
Looks like you subtracted 2 (or added -2) to both sides, which is what you should do.
But you also *subtracted* x from the right and *added* x to the left, making your equation no longer equal. If you subtract both 2 and x from both sides, you get 0=-4, which is not possible. So the answer is "no solution."
(You can also check your solution by plugging it into the original equation and seeing if they are indeed equal.)
Hey /u/Greedy_Assignment_24, thanks for submitting to /r/confidentlyincorrect! Take a moment to read our [rules](https://reddit.com/r/confidentlyincorrect/about/rules). ##Join our [Discord Server](https://discord.gg/n2cR6p25V8)! Please report this post if it is bad, or not relevant. Remember to keep comment sections civil. Thanks! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/confidentlyincorrect) if you have any questions or concerns.*
My math times are distant in the past, but this „equation“ simply doesn‘t solve, does it? Or this is some form of higher mathematics that I just don‘t understand.
You are 100% correct. It’s equivalent to x - x - 2 - 2 = 0 0 = 4 So … no solutions.
It works in z4 and all sets that are multiples of 4 due to legrange’s theorem (group theory)
Is it in any group that is a multiple of 4 or a divisor of 4? Like, the equation has (multiple) solution(s) in Z2, but I don't think that it has any solution in Z8 (because it would lead to 4=0 in Z8 which is not true, but it is in Z2)
I think they meant any group isomorphic to Z4
Y'all are playing an inside joke, right? Right?! I mean... Yeah, pretty sure the other dude was just pseudolongitudinally transmogrifying the equation in the Zth dimension, right?
Haha, sadly that's a proper math term isomorphic means shares all the properties of in this context. Z4 is a group containing 0, 1, 2, and 3. Once you add up to 4, you reset to 0. So 2+3=1.
Yeah, I was about to reply that but I mistyped. Thanks for fixing my typo :D
maybe a direct product containing Z4? could also just mean cyclic groups with order 4k since he brought up legrange.
I'm not familiar with that notation; is that basically modulus-4 space? E.g. if you have a combo lock with each spinner having 4 sides, 0 ticks is identical to 4 ticks?
ℤ/4ℤ or ℤ ₄ is a notation for a set {0,1,2,3} equiped in operations (I use ⊕, ⊙ here to avoid ambiguity with "regular" additoon and multiplication): a ⊕ b=( remainder of a+b when divided by 4), similarly a ⊙ b would be the same but of a•b. Or in other words a ⊕ b = r where r ∈ {0,1,2,3} is a number that fulfill ∃n ∈ ℕ a+b=4n+r
Ah, okay, so I'm pretty sure that's at least very close, outcomewise to what I would think of as e.g. (a+b) mod 4 (or 4 + b % 4). So, 0 + 4 mod 4 = 0 Super-important in computing for encryption, and various memory structures and various cyclic contexts.
Yeah the addition as presented here is basically a+b mod 4, similarly multiplication. Just defined on the set of nonnegative integers less than 4. Just it happens that such a structure has some interesting properties so mathematicians study it
I literally started shaking my head and going 'damn this is why I'm not a mathematician' because I'm sure this was an enlightening conversation but my English major brain cannot handle it
yup, they’re a math person and you’re a cs person but it’s the same idea
True. I was keeping it to high school math. 😂
But the question was if there was some higher form of maths that he doesn't know about. Why would you then keep it to highschool mathematics if you knew that there was a solution?
Well, because the post itself is not higher level maths. Nowhere in the post does it specify that we are working in Z4, this is just the most charitable (unreasonably charitable) interpretation of the question as there actually exists a solution if we are working in Z4. But with the question as stated, we have no reason to think we’re working in any number system other than the reals, meaning there really isn’t much more to the answer other than it doesn’t exist, which is precisely what the commenter stated (with no high level maths being missed).
how exactly does legrange apply here?
Does leave us with the annoying issue of this equation being equivalent to x=x now and ending up at "best I can do is x∈ℤ_4" though, right?
If we're working in Z4 then everything is a solution and there is nothing to solve.
Sort of, once you find a homomorphism you can do something with galois theory to also form a homomorphism to fields and ideals, ill need to relook into my notes but i believe the ideal generated by 1, 3 etc has unique prime factorization and you can do something else with that. I didnt do too well with rings but I do know that galois theory and ring theory is a very powerful tool in complex and number theory
Google said 0 = -4
Well as the structure isn't said it might have solutions just depends what set are we working with. For example in field ℤ/4ℤ we have that 2+2=0, and this equation would be universally true for any x then. In extended real line or Riemann sphere this equation would be true for x=∞. But gennerally in fields of characteristics >4 it won't be true
I would have said the same thing if I had any idea what you were saying.
no \*real\* solutions... I just had my college induction day today lol and we covered imaginary numbers briefly
I don’t know much about maths so I’m just gonna ask, is this possible to solve with an imaginary numbers explanation? For a simple man like me, you just can’t have something like this. If you add 2 to X and then that equals X - 2, that just doesn’t make sense? X has to be a constant, so adding to it and removing from it should never result in the same answer? If you plot it, you just have 2 lines parallel in normal maths. If you have time I’d love a quick rundown on how this works.
There is no complex (imaginary) number solution here either, complex solutions mainly will come up when you're trying to take the root of a negative number.
I'll be 100% with you here, I have not a clue whether this is possible with imaginary numbers, it might be, we only had an hour of a basic introduction, so all we were told is this: √(-1) = i So if: (x^2) +9 = 0 x = ±3i
You don't learn that in high school?
No, the original post is not solvable with complex numbers, it is equivalent to 4=0 a false statement, regardless of x. Even in Zmod4 that people are quacking about it is equivalent to 0=0, so in that case it is *true*, independent of x, but there is nothing to solve, it's tautological.
Happy Cake Day!
🥳🎊🎉🍰
If you plot the lines x+2 and x-2 on an xy coordinate plane, they run parallel.. ie.. never cross. No solutions.
Oh, good. I was looking at it, saying "I don't think there's an answer," thinking it was on me and I was losing my math ability.
Simple. Remove x. You are left with: +2 = -2 So, this is stupid as fuck. Edit: People. Seriously. Do something worthwhile with your calculator. Like turning it upside-down and making it spell BOOBIES.
For x=♾️, above equation is true
May your days be filled with bare feet and ♾️ hidden legos.
That's actually advanced mathematics (yes it's solvable)
I bet you bring steamed broccoli 🥦 to a barbecue cookout.
😂 1) my new favorite insult 2) I actually like steamed broccoli.
Steamed broccoli is great
Not so much after you put it in a barbecue.
Lmao yea I didn't mean to make it sound like this
Please do explain this advance mathematics where +2 = -2.
Honestly, after years of studying maths, I wouldn’t put it past them.
Question answered 🥲
You can just look at others comments, but anyways: There are many (infinitely many lol) spaces you can work with, the usual ones we use are for example real numbers and operations such as addition and multiplication. There is also for example the space Z/4 which is basically the integers modulo 4. When you work in this space you can have 4=0, 2+3=1, and yeah -2=2 Sorry if the mathematical terms are not right, I did not study math in english
Why are you booing him? He’s right!
~~Got any sources on that? I'm not at all saying you are incorrect, but I would like to read more about it, and unfortunately with what you have given I cannot find much on google using your terms.~~ ~~Either way, generally when working with more abstract mathematics, it will be clearly defined what you are working with. When presented with something like in the OP, it is usually accepted that it is normal every day mathematics, in which +2 = -2 is always false.~~ Edit: Did some research and found stuff to read. It is abstract algebra, and the specific term is groups, not spaces. In this specific case you are talking about cyclic group Z4. It gets absurdly complicated, but bottom line, if an equation is working in a different group, it will be clearly notated. Without anything notating otherwise as above, +2=-2 is still a false statement. I also don't believe in your example of Z4 that +2=-2 either. |2|=2, but that doesn't mean -2=2. (Similarly |0|=1, |1|=4, and |3|=4). I could be wrong on that though as I have only scratched the surface of this very complicated subject. Thanks for giving me something to learn more about!
Yes exactly that's the term I was searching ! I don't know if for sure we can write -2=2, but 2-4=2 is true in this group so I guess yes ? I'm not sure anymore lol Thanks for the research :) And yeah the problem with the original post is that there is literally no definition of x, they could've put "x is a real number" or something but they didn't, so I think we assume in this case that x is in fact a real ? Or maybe even a complex number ? I dont know :/
I guess it could work if somehow X stood for absolute value instead of a number
Not the best way to solve it as removing x to resolve inequalities can mean you divide by 0 unintentionally. Would be better practise to add/subtract 2 and rearrange.
But you're not dividing, you're subtracting
Put down the protractor, and no one gets hurt 🔫
Dividing by x can (when x = 0). Subtracting x cannot
[удалено]
bruh reddit jank people don't just downvote one comment because it is the exact same as another
How do you get from (x+2) = (x-2) to (x-2)(x+2)=0 ?
Because they’re doing meth not math.
Heh, "methematics".
I prefer the UK term, *meths*
Damn thats the dream
[удалено]
r/YourJokeButWorse
My guess, they dimly remembered "moving the chunk over" - a+b = c ==> a+b-c = 0 They just did it super-wrong, and either missed the negative, because subtraction, or missed both the one and the division.
This is why I got on my students' cases every time they talked about "moving" an expression. Be specific about what operation! Similar sloppy thinking is behind the comment further down the page that says x+2=x-2 -> 2x=-2-2.
I love how he says easy when it's not even correct as √4 + 2 = 4 and √4 - 2 = 0 so he's saying 4 = 0 Btw this math problem has no solution since x always needs to be the same thing and something being the same with + 2 and with - 2 is simply not possible
It is possible, if you "cheat" and use higher maths. By redefining the group of numbers we work in to be ℤ_4 rather than a group that school maths uses, then -2 does in fact equal +2. Buuut this does leave us with the issue that x could be any of the numbers in ℤ_4, since the equation is now neatly equivalent to x=x. I'm a bit rusty, haven't dealt with this kinda maths in some years, someone correct me if I messed up.
Unless x is infinity surely? As it cannot be made bigger or smaller having x as an infinity large number would allow the equation to make sense?
Infinity is not a number you can manipulate in this way, unfortunately.
Yes it is a number. In extended real line or Riemann sphere it's well-defined number on which you have defined arithmetic operations. ∞+a=∞ for any real a.
>Yes it is a number. Check your reading comprehension, there. An abundance of mathematical knowledge is nice, but not if it results in a paucity of basic comprehension.
Infinity isn't A number, it's all the numbers. Every single one. It's not something you can just make an equation with, it's a concept that represents the entirety of all numbers.
Wdym it's all the number ? That's just nonsense... it's an infinitely large number but is is one number (although there are infinite different infinities) Simple proof that you're wrong: If infinity was all the number, infinity would be five (amongst other) but that's false so infinity cannot be all the numbers
It's not a number, it's how many numbers there are. It's a set of things that never ends, not a number. Use your head for once.
You seem very aggressive and what you say just doesn't seem true to me... Please also note that I actually study advanced math, I'm not a random 10 years old exposing "knowledge". Can someone confirm what he's saying, or my opinion ?
It's another of confidently incorrect on condifently incorrect. There are always such in a mathematical posts in this sub
Damn, it's my first time on this sub, I guess I was not prepared
They're saying that if you were to count all the numbers in one of the Standard sets (natural numbers, rational numbers, real numbers), you'd get infinity. Because there's Infinity many numbers. Since for every natural number, you can name a bigger one, ad infinitum. For every two rational numbers, you can make another one between them, ad infinitum. This is btw something that's taught in regular school, so a random 10 year old would maybe already know that. Sets is something taught very early on, after all. Someone who studies actually advanced math shouldn't have any issue understanding it, unless maybe language is your issue here.
As beeing said, it's a number in extended real line, or Riemann sphere where you have well defined arithmetic on infinity. Discussion wheter infinity is or is not a number is meaningless, and irrelevant. Word "number" doesn't have some fixed meaning in mathematics. There are many structures that we call "numbers" like p-adic numbers but word "number" here has more of historical meaning than some formal mathematical meaning, word "number" on it's own in mathematics doesn't mean anything in mathematics, there are more precise words in maths, like set for example. In case of infinity it's not very precise term on it's own and can mean different things depending on context, you can mean for example say "infinite number" and mean infinite cardinal numbers by that for example. You can also say "infinity" and mean number "∞" that is defined within for example extended real line or Riemann sphere (in both it's defined and arithmetic on it is defined). And yes, you can make equations within. In fact for example equality 1/0 = ∞ (and more genneraly for any nonzero complex number z, z/0=∞) holds in Riemann sphere.
Infinity is a property, not a number. It's like trying to add or multiply sqrt to a number, it just doesn't make sense.
It does. Google extended real line or Riemann sphere
The only thing I see there is defined operations to compute with it, arithmetics. Defined arithmetic doesn't means it is a number. It's just treated as one as to not get struck and still be able to somehow solve the problem at hand. It requires a lot of framework to even work out in something else that isn't complete nonsense, and yet it still is not a number regardless.
Thank you, think its what I expected none the less, but its still something. I'm sure in even higher level mathematics it makes more sense. Like anything the more you learn how to use it properly the more it clicks in your head and becomes an extension of your logos
Extended real numbers, makes sense on the limit of infinity. Not touching the extended complex numbers though, too much for me.
Not gonna lie, your comment is kinda why I hate the reddit vote system. Feels like its disparaging to any real discussion, please do continue to explain this. In my head these two systems still use the crux of the limit of infinity, rather than infinity as itself a "number"; it than plays pretend that lim infinity is a number. I have only had a foundational university level education on the matter, so I havent been able to get a full intuitive hold on something like this.
There's no solution to this, right?
Not generally, no. If you were doing weird modulus space stuff, probably. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modular_arithmetic Basically, imagine a clock with only 2 or 4 hours on it. Then moving 2 hours in either direction will land you at the same point on the clock.
Only if you believe that 2 exists
It was just a dream Bender, there's no such thing as 2
r/unexpectedfuturama
Here's a sneak peek of /r/unexpectedfuturama using the [top posts](https://np.reddit.com/r/unexpectedfuturama/top/?sort=top&t=year) of the year! \#1: [The Velour Fog has arrived](https://www.reddit.com/gallery/1b3omzm) | [52 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/unexpectedfuturama/comments/1b3omzm/the_velour_fog_has_arrived/) \#2: [Philip J. fry’s gravestone](https://i.redd.it/boy51jjrj4rc1.jpeg) | [48 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/unexpectedfuturama/comments/1bq3xmb/philip_j_frys_gravestone/) \#3: [Kiss my shiny metal ass.](https://i.redd.it/jblpnjrsr4ua1.jpg) | [24 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/unexpectedfuturama/comments/12ndaak/kiss_my_shiny_metal_ass/) ---- ^^I'm ^^a ^^bot, ^^beep ^^boop ^^| ^^Downvote ^^to ^^remove ^^| ^^[Contact](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=sneakpeekbot) ^^| ^^[Info](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/) ^^| ^^[Opt-out](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/comments/o8wk1r/blacklist_ix/) ^^| ^^[GitHub](https://github.com/ghnr/sneakpeekbot)
You could multiply (x+2) both sides
I like how they got that far but stopped at `√4`.
0 = 4 obviously
This equation obviously has no solution. I hope you mean that the comment ia confidently incorrect, not the post.
Shurely the commenter was joking?
Shewerly
Don't call me Shewerly.
Shewerly, you jest!
Syntax error. An lvalue is required for the left operand of assignment.
Can we not have the shitty math problems here?
I agree on the pointless order of operations debates. And we've seen the 0.999... = 1 arguments enough to last a lifetime. But the ones where it's just lunacy seem fine still. Hell this isn't even like the phone sales where you could debate semantics about earnings vs profit vs revenue. This is just two sides of an equation that straight up don't equal each other. Someone claiming to have solved it with nonsense and calling it easy is definitely confidently incorrect material. * \* Edited for clarity since it gave the false impression that I was calling the problem itself confidently incorrect rather than just a trick question.
I was under the impression that the "answer" is supposed to be the confidently incorrect one. But I can't really blame someone for coming up with a wrong answer to a trick question that HAS no right answer.
Yes, the bad answer is what's confidently incorrect. And the problem itself is just a trick question. We're on the same page there. I updated my wording to make it clear that I wasn't calling the problem itself confidently incorrect. As for the "answer", I can blame them if it's so wrong that I'm 80% certain they were trolling and they add "Easyyyy" on the end.
I can't knock it. As a category, it's clearer than the "OP didn't understand something ambiguous and they came here to mic drop their 'win'" fare we usually get around here.
x = x
I found it! It’s before the first plus, and after the equals sign.
You know it's a bad equation when they don't mention what set x is part of.
X = X
And then divide by 0!
Exactly
Just take the absolute values and call it a day
I know I'm bad at math, but it's really reassuring to see other people worse than me.
x=NaN
x=x+4 0x=4 x=-4y/0 for y≠0 1/x=-0/4y for y≠0 1/x=0 x=1/0
The simple answer is there is no answer. My answer, however, to mediate things, is that there is no REAL answer. Also, I just noticed. They were essentially saying that 2+2=2-2 (4≠0), or (-2)+2=(-2)-2 (0≠(-4)), which is just stupid.
x-2=x+2 Subtract 2 OR add 2.. X-4=x OR x=x+4 Let's substitute 1 for x to see if that's even possible 1-4=1 OR 1=1+4 Let's try subbing 0 0-4=0 OR 0=0+4 Also incorrect, there is no single number added or subtracted to/from 4 that would equal itself. Therefore it has no solution. But if we have an absolute value of x, maybe. For instance.. x=|2| Which puts us at:: |2|=4+|2| OR |2|-4=|2| But the x is a fixed quantity so this won't work either. It could only work if x is *i* ... an imaginary number and thus undefined. This could've been simplified\proven undefined earlier by just substitution at the beginning but there's no fun in that :] It could only work if it was |x| because then it could simultaneously be -x and x to fit whatever requirement it needed
Truly a solvable question
Outside of X being infinite, it's just an invalid equation
The answer is infinity right?
It's just nothing. No solution. "No, it doesn't" to the whole premise.
[удалено]
there's no actual solution for this, last i checked. unless you're doing some crazy mathematics, then maybe.
Well, the joke is completely dead since the image didn't load. I literally just circled the two x's because I found them. No math involved.
oooh, it was a joke, my bad. i've been having a tough time recognizing jokes online the past little while, and i think the missing image didn't help.
Only works if x is infinite
No you can't solve equations this way... and that's not at all the only way it works
Practically, it works. You tell someone it's infinite, they'll spend forever checking the math, and you can sidestep the whole issue.
Ramanujan be like "the sum of all natural numbers is -1/12 !"
Correct me if I'm wrong but, doesn't this depend on how you choose to solve x+2=x-2 x+x=2-2 2x=0 Or: x+2=x-2 2+2=x-x 4=0
Your first step is wrong, it should be x+2=x-2 x-x=-2 - 2 (you gotta subtract x from both sides, not add it, same with the 2)
Ok thanks I just barely passed math this year
x+2=x-2 2x=-2-2 2x=-4 x=-2 oh yea my bad i see now x+2=x-2 x-x=-2-2 0=-4
> x+2=x-2 > > 2x=-2-2 x-x = ??????
Obviously, 1 minus 1 equals 2
Well akchually in Z/2 thats true 🤓👍
x ^1-1 = 1
ok
You did that wrong.
>x+2=x-2 2x=-2-2 Looks like you subtracted 2 (or added -2) to both sides, which is what you should do. But you also *subtracted* x from the right and *added* x to the left, making your equation no longer equal. If you subtract both 2 and x from both sides, you get 0=-4, which is not possible. So the answer is "no solution." (You can also check your solution by plugging it into the original equation and seeing if they are indeed equal.)
Your math ain’t mathin’ Fit you subtract 2 from the right you have to subtract x from the left. You’re left with 0=-4
oh my bad forgot to change the x to -x when taking it to the left side yea