Post Difficult Questions Here

[Elenmmare]

Logic would suggest that God then does not exist.

(The ****?) Essentially the idea is that some questions have no answers because the question is stupid. You can't 'if' in front of a completely illogical combination. You risk cataclysmic global destruction.

 

[Ebin]

So can you really divide by zero? Such as 1/0 would be to end something, yet for every end there is another beginning, and even the end of all things is just the beginning of nothing. So my question being is dividing by zero such an infallible operation? I mean, n/0=1/0 would just mean for every ending there is another beginning n=1 wouldn't it?

 

[Kazzan]

No.

 

[Ebin]

No.

Lol... I know, I spent an entire 2 weeks researching and trying new things wondering if I could figure out a way to divide by zero. And quite frankly the only thing I came up with is this:

Mathematics is used as a Rosetta stone for our human language and nature. So basically, the only valid mathematical operations are ones that you can put in a real world situation.

Now consider this the equation: 7 / 0 = ?

Logically that is incorrect. Or is it? If I have 7 apples and divide them between 0 people, I gave nobody my apples. I merely dropped them on the ground and walked away.

Now you might say NO!!! That's 7 - 7!!! But is it? If 7x0=0 and is a logical operation, then the same goes for 7 / 0=0! So the only way to assume dividing by 0 is incorrect. then saying that multiplying by the same is too incorrect...

I remember I ran into a snag at one point, but I don't remember what it was...

 

[kiarj]

What happens if an unstoppable force hits an immovable object?

Surprinsigly enough (Hah!) it'd go Boom, most likely, and it's pretty simple, actually.

That problematic is merely a prettier way to ask what happens is two unstoppable forces would collide. They would go boom, canceling each other's properties. The big hadron collider is sort'uva example of that. (Except it flunked)

 

[Pjoo]

No.

Lol... I know, I spent an entire 2 weeks researching and trying new things wondering if I could figure out a way to divide by zero. And quite frankly the only thing I came up with is this:

Mathematics is used as a Rosetta stone for our human language and nature. So basically, the only valid mathematical operations are ones that you can put in a real world situation.

Now consider this the equation: 7 / 0 = ?

Logically that is incorrect. Or is it? If I have 7 apples and divide them between 0 people, I gave nobody my apples. I merely dropped them on the ground and walked away.

Now you might say NO!!! That's 7 - 7!!! But is it? If 7x0=0 and is a logical operation, then the same goes for 7 / 0=0! So the only way to assume dividing by 0 is incorrect. then saying that multiplying by the same is too incorrect...

I remember I ran into a snag at one point, but I don't remember what it was...

It makes no sense, it can be used to give answers like 1 = 2....

And n/0 = infinity doesn't work either, as
lim(x -> 0+) n/x= inf
lim(x -> 0-) n/x= -inf

inf = -inf

It just doesn't work with the maths, as anything timed with zero is something else timed with zero. From that you get, when you divide it by 0, anything is something else.

When you divide 7 apples between zero people, you get 0 and are left with 7 apples. 7/0=0, leaves 7. Then you have to divide the left-over again, but it just gives 7 as left-over again.

How many mathematicians does it take to change a lightbulb?

 

[Ebin]

No.

Lol... I know, I spent an entire 2 weeks researching and trying new things wondering if I could figure out a way to divide by zero. And quite frankly the only thing I came up with is this:

Mathematics is used as a Rosetta stone for our human language and nature. So basically, the only valid mathematical operations are ones that you can put in a real world situation.

Now consider this the equation: 7 / 0 = ?

Logically that is incorrect. Or is it? If I have 7 apples and divide them between 0 people, I gave nobody my apples. I merely dropped them on the ground and walked away.

Now you might say NO!!! That's 7 - 7!!! But is it? If 7x0=0 and is a logical operation, then the same goes for 7 / 0=0! So the only way to assume dividing by 0 is incorrect. then saying that multiplying by the same is too incorrect...

I remember I ran into a snag at one point, but I don't remember what it was...

It makes no sense, it can be used to give answers like 1 = 2....

And n/0 = infinity doesn't work either, as
lim(x -> 0+) n/x= inf
lim(x -> 0-) n/x= -inf

inf = -inf

It just doesn't work with the maths, as anything timed with zero is something else timed with zero. From that you get, when you divide it by 0, anything is something else.

When you divide 7 apples between zero people, you get 0 and are left with 7 apples. 7/0=0, leaves 7. Then you have to divide the left-over again, but it just gives 7 as left-over again.

How many mathematicians does it take to change a lightbulb?

THANK YOU PJOO!!!! I forgot about all of that... And according to my logic 1/0=1x0 which is still a false statement.

 

[Elenmmare]

What happens if an unstoppable force hits an immovable object?

Surprinsigly enough (Hah!) it'd go Boom, most likely, and it's pretty simple, actually.

That problematic is merely a prettier way to ask what happens is two unstoppable forces would collide. They would go boom, canceling each other's properties. The big hadron collider is sort'uva example of that. (Except it flunked)

Not exactly. His question is an exercise in logic more than physics; an unstoppable force cannot exist if there is an immovable object, because it would mean the force would be stoppable. And vice-versa.

 

[leprechaun]

What happens if an unstoppable force hits an immovable object?

Only if that force is something which is applicable to that object - an immovable object composed entirely of neutrons and an unstoppable electromotive force have no impact on each other, if my head's right!

 

[kiarj]

What happens if an unstoppable force hits an immovable object?

Surprinsigly enough (Hah!) it'd go Boom, most likely, and it's pretty simple, actually.

That problematic is merely a prettier way to ask what happens is two unstoppable forces would collide. They would go boom, canceling each other's properties. The big hadron collider is sort'uva example of that. (Except it flunked)

Not exactly. His question is an exercise in logic more than physics; an unstoppable force cannot exist if there is an immovable object, because it would mean the force would be stoppable. And vice-versa.

Yeah, but theory and logic are two different things. And words like "unstoppable" and "immovable" are irrelevant in physic.

 

[Oyipggy]

Spoiler

No.

Lol... I know, I spent an entire 2 weeks researching and trying new things wondering if I could figure out a way to divide by zero. And quite frankly the only thing I came up with is this:

Mathematics is used as a Rosetta stone for our human language and nature. So basically, the only valid mathematical operations are ones that you can put in a real world situation.

Now consider this the equation: 7 / 0 = ?

Logically that is incorrect. Or is it? If I have 7 apples and divide them between 0 people, I gave nobody my apples. I merely dropped them on the ground and walked away.

Now you might say NO!!! That's 7 - 7!!! But is it? If 7x0=0 and is a logical operation, then the same goes for 7 / 0=0! So the only way to assume dividing by 0 is incorrect. then saying that multiplying by the same is too incorrect...

I remember I ran into a snag at one point, but I don't remember what it was...

It makes no sense, it can be used to give answers like 1 = 2....

And n/0 = infinity doesn't work either, as
lim(x -> 0+) n/x= inf
lim(x -> 0-) n/x= -inf

inf = -inf

It just doesn't work with the maths, as anything timed with zero is something else timed with zero. From that you get, when you divide it by 0, anything is something else.

When you divide 7 apples between zero people, you get 0 and are left with 7 apples. 7/0=0, leaves 7. Then you have to divide the left-over again, but it just gives 7 as left-over again.

How many mathematicians does it take to change a lightbulb?

It isn't that complicated. Do this.

x = 3/0    Now, you can put any number in place of 3. The bottom line is that when you multiply by 0, you get 3=0, which is false. Or that any number other than 0, is equal to 0. I assume they said 0/0 is illegal since everything else/0 is.

 

[Fall of Denial]

-64
--------
  8

I know the answer is 8, but is it negative or positive? 

 

[MasacruTheArcher]

-64
--------
  8

I know the answer is 8, but is it negative or positive? 

Negaitve , -8 it should be . (if i am wrong , don't blame me )

 

[fisheye]

What happens if an unstoppable force hits an immovable object?

BOOM!

Not, but seriously, such a thing cannot exist alongside the other; only one can exist.

What if omnipotent God creates them both?

Then whatever the omnipotent God wants to happen, happens.

 

[Elenmmare]

What do you about the ratio (sin i / sin r) for all angles of incidence greater than 0º?

Why do rays have to be shone at the center of a flat surface for proper refraction? Explain what happens when this is not done.

 

[Swadius 2.0]

Is it unusual for a three year old not being able to count to ten?

 

[The Mercenary]

No.

What is the secondary derivative of f(x) = ((x^7+4x^5+3x^4-3x+4)(4x^3+x-7))/((x^4+3x^3-2x^2)(7x^8+4x^5+2))?

The primary derivative is
f'(x)= ((x^4+3x^3-2x^2)(7x^84x^5+2)((x^7+4x^5+3x^4-3x+4)(12x^2+1)) + (4x^3+x-7)(6x^6+20x^4+12x^3)) - (x^7+4x^5+3x^4-3x+4)(4x^3+x-7) ((x^4+3x^3-2x^2)(56x^7+20x^4)+(7x^8+4x^5+2)(4x^3+9x^2-4x))/((x^4+3x^3-2x^2)(7x^8+4x^5+2))^2

 

[Ambalon]

Yes, it is normal. I still remind asking my mom when she was riding the car; "Mom! What comes after the nine? I knew it but I forgot it"

@TheMerc - We all know you just smashed your keyboard with random numbers and created a huge function so that you look smart.

 

[Swadius 2.0]

What happens if an unstoppable force hits an immovable object?

If the unmovable object is pinned to space and the strings themselves, and the unstoppable object is just something that doesn't run out of momentum. Then what would happen is simply that the unstoppable object would hit the unmovable object, rub up against it and eventually slide off on its merry trajectory.

 

[Ambalon]

What happens if an unstoppable force hits an immovable object?

If the unmovable object is pinned to space and the strings themselves, and the unstoppable object is just something that doesn't run out of momentum. Then what would happen is simply that the unstoppable object would hit the unmovable object, rub up against it and eventually slide off on its merry trajectory.

If it's too hard fo you guys to understand Swadius' example;
Think of a badly done AI mesh and some NPC's moving around. The NPC's are unstoppable and the object is unmovable. What will happen: The NPC will keel walking almost perpendicular to the object, though it will eventually walk away because it's course will be "changed".
Easier yet:
Get a ball (a REAL ball, not an egg) and start pushing it against a cylinder with roughly the width of the ball. See what happens? Exactly.