Ken Tone Posted 17 May, 2012 Posted 17 May, 2012 Well if we're going to start on the 'interesting' maths proofs, try this one £1 = 100p = (10p)2 = (£0.1)2 = £0.01 = 1p, so £1 = 1p Explains a lot about imnflation and the recession doesn't it!
Ken Tone Posted 17 May, 2012 Author Posted 17 May, 2012 I sincerely hope this is a joke Well I wasn't actually seriously suggesting that the whole basis of civilisation since the ancient Greeks was built on a mathematical fallacy! But I note you have not pointed out the flaw in this 'proof'. There's no division by zero in this one.
Saintandy666 Posted 17 May, 2012 Posted 17 May, 2012 Well I wasn't actually seriously suggesting that the whole basis of civilisation since the ancient Greeks was built on a mathematical fallacy! But I note you have not pointed out the flaw in this 'proof'. There's no division by zero in this one. Decimal points are our friend.
Colinjb Posted 17 May, 2012 Posted 17 May, 2012 Well if we're going to start on the 'interesting' maths proofs, try this one £1 = 100p = (10p)2 = (£0.1)2 = £0.01 = 1p, so £1 = 1p Explains a lot about imnflation and the recession doesn't it! There's your problem(s). 10 squared is never 1. You have to treat it as an integer in the calculation.
Ken Tone Posted 17 May, 2012 Author Posted 17 May, 2012 Decimal points are our friend. Nothing to do with the decimal points. 0.1 x 0.1 = 0.01 is correct, and 10p does = 0.1 of a £
Ken Tone Posted 17 May, 2012 Author Posted 17 May, 2012 There's your problem(s). 10 squared is never 1. You have to treat it as an integer in the calculation. Eh? I've said 10 squared = 100 , which it does.
Whitey Grandad Posted 17 May, 2012 Posted 17 May, 2012 There's your problem(s). 10 squared is never 1. You have to treat it as an integer in the calculation. Yes, different units. You can square a number but pence and pounds are different dimensions.
Colinjb Posted 17 May, 2012 Posted 17 May, 2012 (edited) Eh? I've said 10 squared = 100 , which it does. You are not squaring 0.1, You are squaring 10. It is 100 as you say and as such the calculation reading (£0.1)2 = £0.01 is far, far too simplistic. Playing with the units simply doesn't work. You must keep the units consistent otherwise it all falls down, it is an extremely common trap to fall into in the engineering theory I used to work with. Compare Apples with Apples. Always conclude the calculations are doing before switching units. Edited 17 May, 2012 by Colinjb
Whitey Grandad Posted 17 May, 2012 Posted 17 May, 2012 Nothing to do with the decimal points. 0.1 x 0.1 = 0.01 is correct, and 10p does = 0.1 of a £ You're mixing pence and pounds and once you square £0.1 you are in a different dimension which requires a correction factor of 100 to get back to the one in which we live.
Whitey Grandad Posted 17 May, 2012 Posted 17 May, 2012 Well if we're going to start on the 'interesting' maths proofs, try this one £1 = 100p = (10p)2 = (£0.1)2 = £0.01 = 1p, so £1 = 1p This step is wrong. There are 100 p in a £ so to go from p2 to £2 you need to convert by 1002
Bearsy Posted 17 May, 2012 Posted 17 May, 2012 (£0.1)2 = £0.01 Dis bit is all wrong! When you is squaring something you is also squaring the unit of measure, so if you squares £0.1 you is actually getting 0.01 square pounds, and a square pound is 10,000 pence, and 0.01 times 10,000 pence is 100 pence. I just made that up! But it explains things nicelys!
Ken Tone Posted 17 May, 2012 Author Posted 17 May, 2012 Dis bit is all wrong! When you is squaring something you is also squaring the unit of measure, so if you squares £0.1 you is actually getting 0.01 square pounds, and a square pound is 10,000 pence, and 0.01 times 10,000 pence is 100 pence. I just made that up! But it explains things nicelys! Quite right. Exactly! (Though not so good on the English syntax!)
Whitey Grandad Posted 17 May, 2012 Posted 17 May, 2012 Try replacing the £ with metre and p with cm and then imagine it with little square tiles each 1cm x 1cm. So 100p = (10p)2 which would be the same as saying that 100 tiles in a row can be arranged into a square 10 tiles by 10 tiles, but this does not equal 0.1m2 which would need 1000 tiles. The difference is between (0.1)2m and (0.1m)2
scotty Posted 17 May, 2012 Posted 17 May, 2012 Try replacing the £ with metre and p with cm and then imagine it with little square tiles each 1cm x 1cm. So 100p = (10p)2 which would be the same as saying that 100 tiles in a row can be arranged into a square 10 tiles by 10 tiles, but this does not equal 0.1m2 which would need 1000 tiles. The difference is between (0.1)2m and (0.1m)2 Nobody likes a smartarse WG
Whitey Grandad Posted 17 May, 2012 Posted 17 May, 2012 Nobody likes a smartarse WG Do you have that problem too, Scotty?
Whitey Grandad Posted 17 May, 2012 Posted 17 May, 2012 Nobody likes a smartarse WG I often like to look at things from another direction.
View From The Top Posted 17 May, 2012 Posted 17 May, 2012 A mathematician finishes a large meal and says: √(-1/64) What does he say?
nick1579 Posted 18 May, 2012 Posted 18 May, 2012 something like i ate (8 - root of 64), i being the complex number (root of -1).
Whitey Grandad Posted 18 May, 2012 Posted 18 May, 2012 something like i ate (8 - root of 64), i being the complex number (root of -1). It's i over 8.
nick1579 Posted 18 May, 2012 Posted 18 May, 2012 Yep realised earlier I missed the fraction. So the Grandad is right. Probably.
Whitey Grandad Posted 18 May, 2012 Posted 18 May, 2012 0.9 recurring = 1 Indeed, I had this proof offered to me many years ago: 1/9 is 0.11111 recurring 2/9 is 0.22222 recurring ... 9/9 is 0.99999 recurring
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now