Supergrunch Posted September 26, 2005 Share Posted September 26, 2005 In a similar vein to the 0.999rec=1 thread, I shall post the proof that 1>2 1/2 > 1/4 log(1/2) > log(1/4) log(1/2) > log[(1/2)squared] log(1/2) > 2 log(1/2) 1 > 2 Can anyone find the error? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kopo Posted September 26, 2005 Share Posted September 26, 2005 I think if the ground number (whatever you guys call it) =a is between -1 and 1 or something you need to change the > to <. Might not be intirely correct. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Peeps Posted September 26, 2005 Share Posted September 26, 2005 Here's the error... 1, 2, 3. Good day to you... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kopo Posted September 26, 2005 Share Posted September 26, 2005 Here's the error... 1, 2, 3. Good day to you... might be missing something here but .... eh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Din Posted September 26, 2005 Share Posted September 26, 2005 I hve no idea what this thread is about... So WTF? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Supergrunch Posted September 26, 2005 Author Share Posted September 26, 2005 I think if the ground number (whatever you guys call it) =a is between -1 and 1 or something you need to change the > to <. Might not be intirely correct. Congratulations! I thought it would be a little more than half an hour before someone got it. EDIT: Well, you're pretty much right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kopo Posted September 26, 2005 Share Posted September 26, 2005 I hve no idea what this thread is about... So WTF? Either you're -16 or you haven't paying much attention in math. Or you're doing a non-math course, which would make more sense. Or... you're an alien. All bow for our new alien overlords *bows* Edit Congratulations! I thought it would be a little more than half an hour before someone got it. actually i haven't read it from the moment you posted it, took me 2 mins to figure out :wink: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Peeps Posted September 26, 2005 Share Posted September 26, 2005 1, 2, 3 1 then 2 then 3 1 is less than 2 :P don't really need more convincing than that surely? 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7.... I could go on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Din Posted September 26, 2005 Share Posted September 26, 2005 Or... you're an alien. All bow for our new alien overlords *bows* Shit, you're on to me... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kopo Posted September 26, 2005 Share Posted September 26, 2005 1, 2, 3 1 then 2 then 3 1 is less than 2 :P don't really need more convincing than that surely? 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7.... I could go on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on. but the question was to find the error in the prove that had been given. And the only way your answer would be correct is if you proved it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts