Originally posted by rubberjaw30Huh? I've never heard a domain described as an equation. Domain is what you plug into a function and you get the range. I'm confused.
chair could equal chair/chair if under the domain chair = one
In any case, aren't we trying to prove that chair does NOT equal one? Unless you're using a trick where one does not equal 1, which could be clever.
Originally posted by AThousandYoungi mean that it could work if chair and one are equal, meaning that that guy's proof is invalid
Huh? I've never heard a domain described as an equation. Domain is what you plug into a function and you get the range. I'm confused.
In any case, aren't we trying to prove that chair does NOT equal one? Unless you're using a trick where one does not equal 1, which could be clever.
the proof that chair and one are not equal is not valid if the proof is disproven by saying that 1 = chair
2 edits
Originally posted by rubberjaw30If 1 = chair, then this puzzle is impossible to solve..."who gave you permission" to assume that 1 = chair? Where did you get that from?
i mean that it could work if chair and one are equal, meaning that that guy's proof is invalid
the proof that chair and one are not equal is not valid if the proof is disproven by saying that 1 = chair
EDIT - I think I get your point, despite your very poor attempt at getting it across. Are you saying I cannot assume chair =/= chair/chair because I haven't yet proved that chair =/= 1?
By the way, I am "that guy".
Originally posted by AThousandYoungonly by assuming that something is true, and then finding where it contradicts fact, can it be disproven...
If 1 = chair, then this puzzle is impossible to solve..."who gave you permission" to assume that 1 = chair? Where did you get that from?
EDIT - I think I get your point, despite your very poor attempt at getting it across. Are you saying I cannot assume chair =/= chair/chair because I haven't yet proved that chair =/= 1?
By the way, I am "that guy".
for example...
1=2we assume this is true until we discover that this means that one would have to equal one more than itself, which we know is false...
that's an extremely sinmple example, but you get the idea...
Originally posted by AThousandYoungyour edit is correct, forget my last post then
If 1 = chair, then this puzzle is impossible to solve..."who gave you permission" to assume that 1 = chair? Where did you get that from?
EDIT - I think I get your point, despite your very poor attempt at getting it across. Are you saying I cannot assume chair =/= chair/chair because I haven't yet proved that chair =/= 1?
By the way, I am "that guy".
Originally posted by Jirakonwow, well done, i got the same answer this way.
Here goes:
c = 299,792,458 m/s (speed of light)
h = 6.62606896 × 10^-34 J·s (Planck's constant)
a = 0.5291772108 × 10^-10 m (Bohr radius)
i = (-1)^(1/2)
r = 8.314 472 J/(molK) (gas constant)
Therefore chair = 8.7400207226450635243266130035272 x 10^-53 i [(Jm)^2]/(molK) =/= 1
1=arm
arm x force=stuff
*
*inapropriate lines🙁
*
frog-time=tadpole
(forgot what i made up here
and here 2 days ago)
sun %charlie murphy=random calculator number
random calc. #=8.74002..........................
chair doent equal 1
chair = good
{rugters womens baseketball team not available for comment}