[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vr / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k] [s4s] [vip] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / asp / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / wsg / wsr / x] [Settings] [Home]
Board
Settings Home
/sci/ - Science & Math



Thread archived.
You cannot reply anymore.



File: infowar.jpg (10 KB, 300x168)
10 KB
10 KB JPG
Why dose dividing by a number give you the same answer as multiplying by the reciprocal?

Literally makes no sense.
>>
>>9217753
>Literally makes no sense.
Yes, that's expected. You watch Alex Jones after all.
>>
>>9217761
Calm down there soyboy, i'm just asking an honest question.
>>
>>9217753
Because x*1 = x
>>
>>9217784
this tells me nothing.
>>
the same reason that adding a number give the same answer as subtracting the negative
>>
>>9217842
It tells you everything. If you don't get it then you are either too lazy or too stupid to figure it out, probably both.
>>
division and subtraction doesn't even exist. neither do exponents or square roots. it's just adding and multiplying.
>>
>>9217860
Are you going to sit here and pretend you figured out why dividing by a number is the same as multiplying by the reciprocal all by yourself?
>>
>>9217872
Are you going to sit here and pretend you haven't?
>>
All you losers talk shit because you dont know the answer
>>
>>9217879
I haven't, that's why the thread was made.
>>
>>9217868
How do you figure out what 3^0.5 is by adding and multiplying?
>>
File: DanielWebster.jpg (93 KB, 342x509)
93 KB
93 KB JPG
>>9217753
>Literally makes no sense.
As compared to "figuratively makes no sense"?
lrn2 English please.
>>
>>9217753
Without getting into too much of the math, an = sign simply means 1+1=2 (We shouldn't have to argue about it so I will take as if it is a foregone conclusion).

1+1/2 = The fuck you talking about? 1.5? [math]1/(1/2)[/math]
>>
File: index.jpg (6 KB, 193x261)
6 KB
6 KB JPG
>>9217753
Opie, try playing with a pile of beans.
I have 15 beans.
I divide them into 3 equal piles of 5 each.
I look at one pile of 5 in particular and wonder, how many beans would I have if I had three piles of this size.

Now what part of this don't you follow?
>>
10 * 1/2 = 10/1 *1/2

when you multiply fractions you just multiply the denominator of one by the denominator of the other, and the numerator of one by the numerator of the other. The result is expressed as a fraction

2*1 =2 , 10*1 = 10

the fraction you get is 10/2, which is just division
>>
>>9218171
2*2 doesn't equal 4.
>>
>>9218183
So you order 'before' you perform operations.
>>
>>9218162
No ones uses literally literally anymore you little brainlet bitch, its connotation has changed.
>>
>>9218170

The reciprocal of 1/1 = 1/1.
>>
File: ん?.png (182 KB, 702x397)
182 KB
182 KB PNG
Because 666 is a doubling of 33 and 33 is pi.
>>
>>9218211
Literal doesn't mean real, it literally refers to the literal meaning and ordering of words. For an idiomatic version, try "by the book."
>>
File: photo.jpg (116 KB, 900x900)
116 KB
116 KB JPG
>>9218153
>How do you figure out what 3^0.5 is

You don't need to figure it out, since it doesn't even exist.
>>
>>9217842
Not >>9217784, but it does make sense.
Line 1: x*1 = x
Line 2: 1 = x/x
Dividing both sides of Line 2 by x makes 1/x = x/x^2, and x/x^2 = 1/x, therefore 1/x = 1/x
Now take Line 2 and multiply both sides by 1/x.
1/x (or x^-1) = (x/x)*1/x, or (x^1 * x^-1) * x^-1, resulting in x^1 * x^-2, and using laws of exponents (or powers, idgaf), x^1 * x^-2 = x^(1+(-2)) = x^-1 = 1/x.

Recap: 1*x = x, 1 = x/x, (1)/x = (x/x)/x = x/x^2 = 1/x, and (1)* 1/x = (x/x) * 1/x = x/x^2 = 1/x
Make sense?
>>
>>9218711
I see. How do you prove that it doesn't exist?
>>
multiply 3 by itself half of a time
>>
>>9218947

Suppose that (a/b)^2 = 3. Then the area of an equilateral triangle of side length a = the area of three equilateral triangles of side length b. Put the triangles inside the bigger triangle in a triforce pattern. The intersection of the three triangles yields three smaller triangles (of side length 2b - a) , whose total area is equal to the gap (side length 2a - 3b). So we would have a smaller solution to (x/y) ^2 = 3

Contradiction since there must be a smallest solution.
>>
>>9219078
>Then the area of an equilateral triangle of side length a = the area of three equilateral triangles of side length b

How can you use the area of equilateral triangles if the formula for the area of an equilateral triangle is [math] \frac{\sqrt{3}}{4} x^2 [/math] ?

If the square root of 3 does not exist then doesn't that mean that equilateral triangles don't have area?
>>
>>9217753
>dose

Nice touch. Attention to detail is what sets a sophisticated troll apart.
>>
>>9217753

Fractions are just divisions we don't want to do




Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.