Mathematics (round of applause from me, boos from crowd)

[Cosmic Fury]

Milo, you have found a potential mathematical paradox.

However, even so this cannot be a paradox.


Why, you ask?




Let's look at the English Language.

Grammatical rules of this language dictate that a double-negative is equal to a positive statement, thereby rendering any negative effects null, and turning the sentence in its entirely into its original intended opposite (at least to those making the error as opposed to doing it on purpose, which is called sarcasm, and irony).




"I can not not go to the store" = "I can go to the store."

-(x) * -(x) = -(1)-(1)(x)(x) = 1(x)(x) = x * x = x^2




This equation, therefore, is NOT a paradox, but is a true statement, however in a more subtle form.




I rest my case.

[Rota]

Does anyone love integral calculus? Personally, I love it. Derivatives and differential math are so much fun. The curve of a curve shows us so much.

Anyway, if you hate it or love it, it has a great origin story.


Isaac Newton is probably the most genius mathematician ever. You can argue that it's Einstein or Hawking or any other number of valid candidates. But, I'm sticking with Newton because of this story.

So, Newton comes up with his laws of motion and gravity and force. You know that already. A friend of Newton said to him, "If these laws of motion work the way you say they do, then why are orbits ellipses, instead of perfect circles?" Newton had no clue. He told his friend he would look into that and get back to him with an answer. Newton spent the next few months doing some math. In order to find the answer for his friend, he INVENTED integral calculus.

... That's right. All those huge thick books on integral calculus, all those advanced college courses, all those solutions to physics problems that integral calculus has given us...
... It was all created ON A DARE!!! His friend asked a simple question, and Newton had to create an entire genre of calculus to answer him. AND he did it in a couple months!!!


So, the next time you're stumped by integral calculus, just remember that Newton figured it all out from scratch in just a few months. Not because he had to, but just for kicks, so he could answer a friend's question. Then you can feel sufficiently inadequate.

[gottibabe1]

Milo, you have found a potential mathematical paradox.

However, even so this cannot be a paradox.


Why, you ask?




Let's look at the English Language.

Grammatical rules of this language dictate that a double-negative is equal to a positive statement, thereby rendering any negative effects null, and turning the sentence in its entirely into its original intended opposite (at least to those making the error as opposed to doing it on purpose, which is called sarcasm, and irony).




"I can not not go to the store" = "I can go to the store."

-(x) * -(x) = -(1)-(1)(x)(x) = 1(x)(x) = x * x = x^2




This equation, therefore, is NOT a paradox, but is a true statement, however in a more subtle form.




I rest my case.

Actually, It'd be "I can not not go to the store" = "I have to go to the store"

Since he can not not, means he doesn't have a choice he has to go.

[Sigilstone17]

Here's the only math one should ever care about: "One Twinkie plus one Twinkie equals twice the deliciousness!"

[Richie_B]

How about this for an equation?

[LaoOmologo]

What is one plus one? THREE!!
The man and the woman gets a child

[Yellow Submarine]

Clever....

However, you fail, because I hate studying yet I still love math.

[Richie_B]

I have no choice but to study it.......well I'm supposed to anyway. The only thing that I really hate doing is learning theorems - everything else is fine.

[Yellow Submarine]

I despise proofs with a passion.

[Richie_B]

I agree, the understanding of them isn't too bad but proving them is a pain. Pythagoras' theorem is very easy to understand but the proof is way more complicated. Even the application of it was too much for this guy:

I wish I could do what he did for every algebra Q I do but finding 5cm in that one isn't hard at all. (Anyway, I think they phrase it "Solve for x" now instead of "Find x")