Funny math and physics proofs

Leave a comment

March 11, 2007, 8:04 am

Filed under: blog | Tags: animation, Engineering, Funny, gif, halarious, lulz, Music, politics

Filed under: blog | Tags: animation, Engineering, Funny, gif, halarious, lulz, Music, politics

But before the proofs, we have an animated gif created at clipmann.com, (also, clipmann.com does custom watermarks and lulz comic strips)

This is another set of funny math/physics stuff!. The first one is a proof that women ARE EVIL. The second one is a proof that 1=2, SERIOUSLY, think about what step was wrong! i’ll give you a hint, but you have to read it backwards “oReZ yB eDiVeD tNaC UoY”. The third one WILL SHOW YOU without a doubt that the less that you know, the more money you make!. Seriously!, we laugh now!, but FUDGE!.

**15 Comments so far**Leave a comment

the black one doesn’t work because you can’t divide by a variable:P

Comment by meOctober 18, 2007 @ 1:28 amNo, actually you divide variables all the time. Please learn your math kthx

Comment by meiswrongNovember 1, 2007 @ 4:09 pma-b =zero so we cannt dvide by it

Comment by safsafNovember 4, 2007 @ 12:53 amit doesn’t work because when you cancel out the common factor on each side, you are dividing each side by (a-b). a-b is equal to zero and you can’t divide by zero

Comment by blehNovember 4, 2007 @ 7:33 pmsmile people, this is suppose to be humorous.

Comment by mozeyNovember 5, 2007 @ 5:58 pmActually, me, you can divide by a variable. It fails because A-B=0 and you can’t divide by 0 (when factoring out the common factor).

Comment by LukeNovember 25, 2007 @ 4:58 pmCorrect me if I’m wrong but by when doing calculus we set a variable to be very very close to zero, divide by that, and then substitute zero in for the variable later assuming that it will not make any noticeable difference.

Could this not be true about 2 = 1.

say a-b = h. and h is h as it is approaching zero.

It would produce the same outcome…

why can we do it in calculus and not in any other incident?

Comment by TylerDecember 29, 2007 @ 6:05 am4th step, dividing 0 by 0 is the reason that the answer 2 = 1 comes out. in the third step the equation has been set to 0 = 0. So you would need to use l’hopital’s rule to find the indeterminate value at 0/0. =]

Comment by StelJanuary 11, 2008 @ 10:50 amNo tyler, you set A=B in the beginning

So if you do A-B=h then h MUST = 0 , not approach it

and h isnt approaching zero anyhow in calculus, you take the limit as h approaches zero – its totally different

Comment by meemooJanuary 18, 2008 @ 2:44 pmChuck Norris can divide by zero.

Comment by Pete M.July 11, 2008 @ 3:46 amI somewhat agree with meemoo. The fact that you mentioned A=B in the beginning shows that the rest of it doesn’t even work. I can understand where it was going, but just it doesn’t work because as someone else had mentioned it would have been A-B = 0 which would have just ended it there.

As for mentioning Calculus. Come on. This has nothing to do with limits or approaching any specific number. This is just basic algebra.

Other than the math faults it was pretty funny.

Comment by Someone.July 16, 2008 @ 2:53 amdefinitely funny, my only comment is that when setting A=B; neither A or B are variables, they are constants. (the same constant) so the problem as anticlimactic as it is really should be: C=C

Comment by mr. smithDecember 29, 2008 @ 6:19 amThe point for this is not mathematical accuracy but pure “stupid humour”. Get the facts straight

Comment by JanFebruary 28, 2009 @ 9:27 pmAlthough the last step makes logical sense, mathematics laws would stress that you group like terms. So in fact one solution to the problem would be,

2b=b

so,

2b-b=0

b=0

Comment by Van DamnMarch 5, 2009 @ 2:30 pmYour math is shotty and creates new math that does not follow the fundamentals of real math. You suck at life and should get a real education from real professors. Or take 5 minutes to re-learn algebra. Most of these comments are made by morons who also have the same misunderstanding of math.

Comment by Physicist15April 10, 2009 @ 3:23 am