I Have another mathamatical theory to run by you guys!

Shujinco2 · May 08, 2008, 01:21:16 PM

Except this one has WAY less foundation then my other theory! :D

Ok, basically, my theory is that every PHYSICAL thing in the universe is being divided by 0. Why? I'll explain why:

Look at this picture. I BELIEVE it to be correct, to tell the truth, I'm really not sure. :-\ But anyway, this is basically stating that that graph will happen when you divide anything (the X) by 0. (Which I'm also not too sure that's how the graph is supposed to look.)

However, what if X were to equal a physical object, actually existing in the real world? Then X isn't a number anymore, it's a thing, which is VERY much different from a number. In this example, I will replace X with my friend Triforceman22:

As you see, Triforceman22 is now occupying the space that X was, making him fully equivilant.

Now, let's put something on our Y Axis. Let's say, oh Years:

The base Y value is the current date and time. In 1 year, will Triforceman22 be any more or less than what he was previously? I'm pretty sure he won't be. Also, will he be any more or less than what he was previously two or three years after the current time? I ALSO think not:

And if we connect the dots:

Looks familiar, doesn't it? ;)

Anyway, looking at this graph, what would you say the slope was? Why, the slope is 0 of course! And how do you GET a zero slope? Simply by dividing your X value (Triforceman22) by 0! ^_^

And of course, Triforceman22 isn't "Undifined", he's "Triforceman22", which means he isn't "undifined", like what would normally happen if you divided a number by 0!

So, what do you think about THAT theory, huh? And yes, I'm pretty sure there are a LOT of open ends, I'm aware.

Tupin · May 08, 2008, 01:23:36 PM

Interesting...

Zovistograt · May 08, 2008, 01:23:57 PM

No, I don't think there's any foundation at all of what you're saying. You're trying to find correlation of a single variable, which doesn't exist.

Riosan · May 08, 2008, 01:26:08 PM

I didn't understand any of that.

Shujinco2 · May 08, 2008, 01:28:59 PM

Quote from: Zovistograt on May 08, 2008, 01:23:57 PM
No, I don't think there's any foundation at all of what you're saying. You're trying to find correlation of a single variable, which doesn't exist.

Yeah, I was afraid that would be the outcome. :( But, how does the variable not exist? X is a variable, from what I was told, is an unknown unit. Triforceman22 is my unit, and therefor, wouldn't the variable exist?

Great, now I'm confusing myself. :(

Zovistograt · May 08, 2008, 01:31:22 PM

Quote from: Shujinco on May 08, 2008, 01:28:59 PM
Quote from: Zovistograt on May 08, 2008, 01:23:57 PM
No, I don't think there's any foundation at all of what you're saying. You're trying to find correlation of a single variable, which doesn't exist.
Yeah, I was afraid that would be the outcome. :( But, how does the variable not exist? X is a variable, from what I was told, is an unknown unit. Triforceman22 is my unit, and therefor, wouldn't the variable exist?

Great, now I'm confusing myself. :(

yeah.

You can't take the correlation of a single-variable scatterplot, though. It is simply an incorrect mathematical practice. Nice try, though.

Daft Pink · May 08, 2008, 04:38:37 PM

Quote from: Shujinco on May 08, 2008, 01:21:16 PM
Except this one has WAY less foundation then my other theory! :D

Ok, basically, my theory is that every PHYSICAL thing in the universe is being divided by 0. Why? I'll explain why:

Look at this picture. I BELIEVE it to be correct, to tell the truth, I'm really not sure. :-\ But anyway, this is basically stating that that graph will happen when you divide anything (the X) by 0. (Which I'm also not too sure that's how the graph is supposed to look.)

However, what if X were to equal a physical object, actually existing in the real world? Then X isn't a number anymore, it's a thing, which is VERY much different from a number. In this example, I will replace X with my friend Triforceman22:

As you see, Triforceman22 is now occupying the space that X was, making him fully equivilant.

Now, let's put something on our Y Axis. Let's say, oh Years:

The base Y value is the current date and time. In 1 year, will Triforceman22 be any more or less than what he was previously? I'm pretty sure he won't be. Also, will he be any more or less than what he was previously two or three years after the current time? I ALSO think not:

And if we connect the dots:

Looks familiar, doesn't it? ;)

Anyway, looking at this graph, what would you say the slope was? Why, the slope is 0 of course! And how do you GET a zero slope? Simply by dividing your X value (Triforceman22) by 0! ^_^

And of course, Triforceman22 isn't "Undifined", he's "Triforceman22", which means he isn't "undifined", like what would normally happen if you divided a number by 0!

So, what do you think about THAT theory, huh? And yes, I'm pretty sure there are a LOT of open ends, I'm aware.

Actually, the slope isn't 0. It has no slope. It has a slope of 0 when its flat.

Red · May 08, 2008, 06:13:10 PM

Zovi beats me to everything. ;_;

Anyway there is one more thing I would like to point out. Your Triforceman22(x) is a three dimensional object. Time, however, is a four dimensional object. This is crossing two dimensions together. Therefore it would have to be a parabola. The same outcome you would get if you graphed a qudratic equation. So it is incorrect for having a strait line.

Allegretto · May 08, 2008, 07:22:19 PM

AHHHHHHH i come to this place to get away from math *Locks self in closet*

BOSSNIG · May 09, 2008, 05:07:18 AM

You divided by 0 O.O.

Impossible to divide by zero. You can't fit nothing into something.

Shujinco2 · May 09, 2008, 05:11:02 AM

Quote from: RedSox on May 08, 2008, 06:13:10 PM
Zovi beats me to everything. ;_;

Anyway there is one more thing I would like to point out. Your Triforceman22(x) is a three dimensional object. Time, however, is a four dimensional object. This is crossing two dimensions together. Therefore it would have to be a parabola. The same outcome you would get if you graphed a qudratic equation. So it is incorrect for having a strait line.

At least I checked my answer. ^_^ t was wrong :( but I still checked it! ^_^

Redpaige13 · May 09, 2008, 05:24:16 AM

...You lost me at "mathematical".

Max Headroom · May 09, 2008, 07:33:03 AM

But vertical lines are undefined; horizontal lines have the zero slope.

Kaz · May 09, 2008, 12:43:22 PM

What the hell? An 8th grade algebra student could've told you that you were wrong just by knowing the difference between an undefined slope and a slope of 0.

There's so many things wrong with this it's not even funny. Though I guess this wouldn't have been funny if it was right, either.

Shujinco2 · May 09, 2008, 01:25:33 PM

Quote from: Kazooie-Banjo on May 09, 2008, 12:43:22 PM
What the hell? An 8th grade algebra student could've told you that you were wrong just by knowing the difference between an undefined slope and a slope of 0.

There's so many things wrong with this it's not even funny. Though I guess this wouldn't have been funny if it was right, either.

And in being wrong, I have learned. ^_^

This is what I love about phycology! ^_^

At least I didn't just ASSUME I was completely right and not get a second opinion at all. Smart people check thier answers! ^_^

To I AM A PERSON: That's probably what caused all the problems to begin with. :-\