The Fibonacci Sequence

Originally posted by THUDandBLUNDER
Anyway, it's a pity you didn't get the original joke.

lol, You edited that joke after I've read it. That's why I didn't understand it 😛

or did you mean this post:

What's the square root of 69?

Eight something...

?

Originally posted by Florrat
lol, You edited that joke after I've read it. That's why I didn't understand it 😛

or did you mean this post:

[b]What's the square root of 69?

Eight something...

?
[/b]

The latter.

Soixante-neuf?

Originally posted by THUDandBLUNDER
The latter.

Soixante-neuf?

He must be under 14.

Originally posted by THUDandBLUNDER
The 4000th is definitely a 3

I disagree. It's a 2.

Originally posted by Bowmann
He must be under 14.

almost right, i'm exactly 14😀😉😛

Originally posted by THUDandBLUNDER
Anyway, it's a pity you didn't get the original joke.

Is it a real funtional joke or is it just waffle? Why is a differential going by the name of d/dy amusing? 😕 Could you explain it so I can baffle someone else with it.

Originally posted by Florrat
almost right, i'm exactly 14😀😉😛

Happy Birthday! 😀

Originally posted by Bowmann
I disagree. It's a 2.

If so, what are the previous 3999?

Originally posted by jimslyp69
Is it a real funtional joke or is it just waffle? Why is a differential going by the name of d/dy amusing? 😕 Could you explain it so I can baffle someone else with it.

If you differentiate e^x wiith respect to x it remains unaffected.
That is, letting y = e^x, dy/dx = e^x
But d(e^x)/dy = dy/dy = 1
e^x has been changed into a constant.

Originally posted by THUDandBLUNDER
Happy Birthday! 😀

lol, maybe not so exactly 😀

Originally posted by THUDandBLUNDER
If so, what are the previous 3999?

Oh no, not again!

Originally posted by Bowmann
Oh no, not again!

Yes, yet again you make claims but are unable to back them up.

Originally posted by THUDandBLUNDER
Yes, yet again you make claims but are unable to back them up.

No. I meant that yet again you fail to realize you already supplied the information in this thread. (Another drunken post, methinks.)

Originally posted by Bowmann
I disagree. It's a 2.

Justify the above assertion, Bowmann.

Originally posted by THUDandBLUNDER
Justify the above assertion, Bowmann.

I counted 'em 😀