>two negatives make a positive because... because I just said so you fucking chud!!!how is math in your country like?
( (||) )
Mathematics is no longer taught as a separate subject here, it is now part of the course "Knowledge and Scientific Thinking"https://libros.conaliteg.gob.mx/pdf-reader/reader.html?nivel=secundaria&ciclo=2026&clave=S3SAA
-1 is just i*2
>>225508201its i^2
>>225507926double negative also equals a positive in linguistics you retard, it's a matter of logic
>>225508298>math is le wordsshut the fuck up faggot>>225508228this isn't beginner math anymore, but it's funny how negative x negative is positive is beginner math, and its just told as being "accepted".
>>225507926>(-) (-)hehehe innie boobs
>>225508355i would call negative x negative = positive beginner math as well. it comes from the fact that each number having an additive inverse, when added together that yields 0.-4 * 3 = -12. -12's additive inverse is 12. you can reach 12 by either inverting -4 to 4, so that 4*3 = 12, or by inverting 3 to -3, so that -4 * -3 = 12.
>>225508355yes retard, negating a statement twice restores its original meaning just like multiplying a negative number reverses its direction on the number line, which is what the negative and positive signs attached to a number essentially are
>>225507926>Turn around>Turn around againWtf i'm facing the same direction
>>225508431>>225508535>>225508589>two negatives make a positive unless you add or subtract two negatives then they stay negative
>>225508670because adding and subtracting combine movements while multiplication by a negative reverses directionwhen you add, say, (-3) and (-2) you move 5 steps in a certain direction, but multiply them will also reverse that direction
Is /int/ smart enough to solve it?
>>225508853For every question out there the answer is Jesus Christ.
>>225508670addition and multiplication are different operators
>>225508853LKJ
>>225507926>the Distrubutive Property doesnt exist because... it just doesnt okay????Belgian education
>>225507926The negation of of a negation is an affirmation, thoIt is true that it is false that dogs are not brown haired.
>>225510477
I'm not going to explain more.
>>225507926>>225508670>Take a basket of 20 eggs>Put 10 of them in a smaller basket>Now put back 2 eggs from the smaller basket to the big one>You REMOVED 2 eggs from the small basket yet ADDED back 2 eggs to the big one20 - (10 - 2) = 20 - 10 + 2
>>225508298Not in every language
>>225508201multiplication by i and its powers (aka 1 and -1) is just counterclockwise rotation on the unit circle>>225507926so when you multiply two times by i (90 deg twice) you end up at -(the number), then you multiply 2 times by i again and end up at positive :3
>>225508298It is a matter of the logical operation though- AND - is +- OR - is -+OR- is either + or - depends on which one is bigger.
>>225517250i=e^ipi/2
(-)(-)=(+)(-)(-)*1*1=(+)*1*11. -1*-1=i^2*i^2=i^42. +1*+1=i^0note: i^0==i^4 from circular property of eulers equation=>+1*+1=i^4=>lhs=rhsidentity holds, multiplication can be explained as rotation
>>225508201I stopped caring about math when I was introduced to the concept of imaginary numbers. What a crock of shit. If your equation can only be solved by inventing numbers that can't exist, like some kind of math deity , then you are fucking wrong and the math is flawed. Same for algebra solutions that basically say "the correct answer is whatever the correct answer is". Thats what the math said transcribed to words but god forbid if i wrote in down in english instead of the ancient math runes the teacher word mark me wrong.Math is logical and numbers never lie my ass. Math is just as flawed as any other human construct.
Two wrongs dont make a right
>>225507926>>225508355man you guys have really had nothing to do so since gabber died, huh?
Total Complex Number Love
>>225507926If only you knew how bads things really are....
>>225523805retardcomplex numbers have real life interpretationsshould have stopped when you were introduced to integers by this logic
>>225523805Imagine negative numbers. Completely not real and imaginative. Fuck mathematics I just smash rocks.
>>225521467>>225517250This postdates it though so it is only a formalisation after the fact, not the source.
>>225507926Let R be an ordered ring. We claim that if a,b in R satisfy a<0 and b<0, then ab>0. We begin with the following lemma: if a<0 then (-a)>0. By the first axiom of ordered rings addition preserves inequalities whence a<0 implies a+(-a) < (-a). Since (R,+) is a group, the LHS is equal to 0 and we get (-a) > 0. The lemma is thus proven.Now observe that by the second axiom of ordered rings (-a)>0 and (-b)>0 imply (-a)(-b) > 0. By the first axiom (-a)(-b) > 0 implies (-a)(-b) + (-a)b > (-a)b. By distributivity of rings this implies (-a)(b-b) > (-a)b. By inverse and absorption properties of rings, the LHS is identically zero. We thus have (-a)b < 0. By the first axiom of ordered rings this implies (-a)b + ab < ab whence (a-a)b < ab by distributivity whence ab > 0. QEDtl;dr baby's first proof in algebra. Notice how this works in ordered rings only. Something like this doesn't work in an unordered ring like \mathbb{C} or \mathbb{Z}_n.
>>225507926(-) is rotating the number 180° degrees on the number scale, therefore if you do it twice you rotate 360° and end up back where you started
>>225524527That felt like taking mathematical BBC ngl.
>>225507926>Turn 360° and walk away
>>225507926>180°+180°=360°WOAH!!!!!!!
>>225507926>a third of 10 is 3.3333*Maths niggas just need to take the L on this one im sorry. This just isn't true. I can see with my eyeballs it isnt.
>>225524527Indian students study this in class 1.
>>225524527>We claim that if a,b in R satisfy a<0 and b<0, then ab>0.But that's what OP doesnt understand in the first place
>>225530045The argument is that if a<0then a+(-a)<-a (you added -a on both sides)or 0<-a, proving that a number less than zero can be flipped. This already proves that negatives "cancel" when multiplied since it was already a negative number by being less than 0 and we made it positive by tacking on the negative. But for rigor you can go the extra mile by protiving the same for a product.Since the product of negatives is contested we can use the previously proven property to make our numbers positive so the product is just a "regular" number.-a>0 or -a is a positive number, likewise for -b>0(-a)(-b)>0(-a)(-b)+(-a)(b)>(-a)(b)0>(-a)(b)Since flipping b from + to - changed it from positive to negative it really was positive and the - signs did become a + on addition.And ofcourse a ring is a set of numbers you can add and multiply to make any other number element of the set. Like I can make a 3 a 5 by multiplying with 5/3.
>>225530443>protivingproving>Since flipping b from + to -- to +Sorry I got melanin disease.
>>225529886Define Abelian without using any big scary words saar.
>turn that frown upside down>wtf it's a smile now
>>225508355math really is le words though
>>225523984rare flag
>>225507926haha boobies
>>225508201BullshitUso
>>225507926Think about this: multiplying by a negative number a positive one would be like multiple subtractions. Multiplying a negative by a negative is like subtracting loss which turns to addition. If you have a fund from which you deduct your debts to your friends, and then one friend pays some debts it would be as if you would be deducting from debts and thus be gained to the total value.
>>225534286Wife dies in an accident (negative)She didn't have insurance (negative)Nope, don't see anything positive coming out of this.
>>225508670>go more in one direction>I'm further than I was before in that direction>omfg hax
>>225534460That is adding two negatives which results in a negative. Think about a robber about to attack an old woman (negative). You punch him really hard and he gets knocked out (negative to robber). So the lady and those around are now safe (positive)
>>225530504Don’t undermine yourself for whitey points
>>225534818What? I’m genuinely curious any other examples? Is it like when negros call women bad bitches even though bad had a negative connotation?
>>225534857So you have a bad bacteria causing disease in your body (negative to you). You take antibiotics which destroy bacteria (negative to bacteria). Antibiotics are good to you in this case (positive).Look, these examples are not 100% accurate and maths are actually very abstract
