It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Impossible Math Question?

page: 4
8
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 27 2010 @ 11:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by SpookyVince
Kalisdad, NO. It is clear that it is not x + (1/2) x = x.


OP says 'If not number, then maybe what element + half of itself would = itself?"

how is this not x+(1/2)x=x?

I never said the variable was or had to be a number




posted on Nov, 27 2010 @ 12:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wildmanimal
reply to post by billb1215
 



By The way,,,Dyson,Oreck,and Electrolux have made a fortune with this concept.

You forgot the government;






posted on Nov, 27 2010 @ 12:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by demonseed
What number + 1/2 would equal itself again?

(not half of itself, just 1/2)



Indeed an insteresting questions. However, please list your assumptions


Using the basic assumptions this is impossible.
X+1/2 = X
resolves itself to 1/2 = 0.

So are you asking for what operation is 1/2 an identity? How do you define "+" then is the real question.
"+" is just a rule, and in different algebras could mean ... well, anything.. not just what we assume in our every day life.

Also another assumption is, what number set are we working in? Our operators and theorems do not always hold solid outside the real number system.
Consider:
1 = Sqroot(1) = Sqroot( -1 * -1) = Sqroot(-1) * sqroot(-1) = i* i = i^2 = -1
And by this 1 = -1
which again is impossible.
However using the princples of the complex number system, the rules are different and there is a step here that cannot be done due to continuity.

Also consider radians, is there something like Sin(x) + 1/2 = sin(y)? Where sin(x) = sin(y)

like in radians: sin(0) + 2pi = sin(2pi).. 0, 2pi, 4pi.. etc all really the same point on the unit circle

edit on 27-11-2010 by catlantis because: for example

edit on 27-11-2010 by catlantis because: changed in to outside

edit on 27-11-2010 by catlantis because: blast it I put a ^ and meant *



posted on Nov, 27 2010 @ 12:53 PM
link   
Here is another fun "impossiblility"

e^(i*pi) + 1 = 0

It is on the tombstone of the famous mathematician Leonard Euler...

This example and the 1=-1 one were primary reasons why mathematicians in Euler's time called them imaginary numbers... hence, the "i".
Engineers call this value "j"

But again, using operators on a number system for numbers that may not be in that set can lead to false results.
edit on 27-11-2010 by catlantis because: -" " and + "stone"



posted on Nov, 27 2010 @ 01:31 PM
link   
It sounds to me, that you are simply looking for a cycle that repeats itself. We this this happen all the time. 1/3 of anything is .33 repeated. I don't think its possible to do this with 1/2, because half of something will always be half of something, it can't equal itself over again, but 1/3 can.



posted on Nov, 27 2010 @ 01:43 PM
link   
as I said on pg one:

half life — symbol t1/2 — the time taken for the activity of a given amount of a radioactive substance to decay to half of its initial value.

en.wikipedia.org...

Would someone please explain to me why this doesn't satisfy the requirements as stated?

a mass of radioactive element plus half its mass equals itself...eventually
every math question on every math test any where in the known universe takes time to solve
since the time factor in this case is open ended case closed.



posted on Nov, 27 2010 @ 01:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Danbones
 


half life function on exponential decay and I believe needs differential equations to solve, which on the face of it is not our standard and abilian concept of the operator +.

Again, what is + in all this? Assumptions have to be stated.



posted on Nov, 27 2010 @ 02:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by SpookyVince
Kalisdad, NO. It is clear that it is not x + (1/2) x = x.

Now there's something.

Adding doesn't necessarily means "to perform the mathematical addition".

So: instead of "additioning" let's simply "add" (collate, stick to) 1/2 to 2/4. This needs to be seen with horizontal fraction bars:
2 1
- -
4 2

That would be 2/4 "+" 1/2 -> 21/42 wich is still 1/2.


or
1+2=3
-- -- ---
2+4=6



posted on Nov, 27 2010 @ 02:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by catlantis
reply to post by Danbones
 


half life function on exponential decay and I believe needs differential equations to solve, which on the face of it is not our standard and abilian concept of the operator +.

Again, what is + in all this? Assumptions have to be stated.


I'm not sure, but I think the OP is trying to get us to design an overunity device for him.



posted on Nov, 27 2010 @ 02:09 PM
link   
reply to post by catlantis
 


the mass + one half mass equals half it self needs no "anything" except time to complete
sorry
I said prove


edit on 27-11-2010 by Danbones because: (no reason given)

edit on 27-11-2010 by Danbones because: (no reason given)

edit on 27-11-2010 by Danbones because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 27 2010 @ 02:12 PM
link   
hey dave
you could be right

I am not going to share my over unity device unless he asks nicely...
how ever I will share the secret to the 11 herbs and spices
if he offers to send me a six pac of Heineken

as a bonus I will even share with him a magic phrase
that will make certain physical things appear on a table
seemingly out of no where
edit on 27-11-2010 by Danbones because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 27 2010 @ 02:26 PM
link   
1 gallon cylinder with 1 gallon compressed gas inside +
1/2 gallon compressed gas = 1 gallon compressed gas



posted on Nov, 27 2010 @ 02:27 PM
link   
VO2+½= VO2???



posted on Nov, 27 2010 @ 02:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Danbones
 


Ah, so you assume time in this. Did the op?

Is the mass of the substance A at t1 = mass of the substance A at t2, where t1 = initial and t2 is the time of the half life?

The mass should have decayed into either energy or some other substance.
The total mass and energy of the system (if truly closed) should, remain constant over the time.



posted on Nov, 27 2010 @ 02:39 PM
link   
How about this one:
Three guys rent a motel room for $30.00 . Thinking they paid too much, the desk clerk gives the bellhop $5.00 to give back to the three guys. Instead the bellhop decides to keep $2.00 for himself, and gives the guys back $3.00 . So now instead of paying $10.00 for the room, each has now paid $9.00 .
3 X $9.00 = $27.00 + $2.00 the bellhop kept = $29.00 . Where is the other $1.00 ?



posted on Nov, 27 2010 @ 02:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Bkrmn
 


I hate this riddle
IT made me feel really stupid the first time I tried to work it out



posted on Nov, 27 2010 @ 02:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Bkrmn
 


It's not 27 dollars, when you subtract 2 dollars from 30 you get 28 dollars. The three guys paid 9.33 each. 33+33+33= the one dollar that is missing.

The remaining dollar, lies with the desk clerk.
edit on 27-11-2010 by xxshadowfaxx because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 27 2010 @ 03:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bkrmn
How about this one:
Three guys rent a motel room for $30.00 . Thinking they paid too much, the desk clerk gives the bellhop $5.00 to give back to the three guys. Instead the bellhop decides to keep $2.00 for himself, and gives the guys back $3.00 . So now instead of paying $10.00 for the room, each has now paid $9.00 .
3 X $9.00 = $27.00 + $2.00 the bellhop kept = $29.00 . Where is the other $1.00 ?


there is no missing money

in the end they paid $25 for the room plus the $3 they got back, plus $2 that the bellhop kept

that is the original $30

from the renters perspective, they paid $27 or $9 each, but when you subtract the $2 from that you get the $25 they actually paid for the room


in reality they only paid $8.33 each for the room,but the bellhop stole an extra $0.667 from each of them... being the $2 he pocketed
edit on 27-11-2010 by kalisdad because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 27 2010 @ 03:19 PM
link   
reply to post by xxshadowfaxx
 


close, but we know they didn't pay $9.33 each, the room only cost $25

this is the first time I have heard this riddle... you need to take into account the actual numbers, not the percieved numbers


edit on 27-11-2010 by kalisdad because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 27 2010 @ 03:32 PM
link   
Looking at this a different way (pun intended) what about your reflection in a mirror?
Or anything reflected in a mirror?



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join