Science humor

Screenshot 2025-02-07 065854.png
 
Which implies that the equation that was simplified was wrong ^^ But if you get x=x it simply means that you already knew the equation was right=>no new relation=>going in circles.
 
Which implies that the equation that was simplified was wrong ^^ But if you get x=x it simply means that you already knew the equation was right=>no new relation=>going in circles.

It's not that the equation was wrong, it's that I couldn't simplify things properly. Demonstrating that x=x is not particularly useful, but demonstrating that 1=0 when you're in an exam trying to derive a formula you know is right just shows that you're an idiot....
 
Certainly ^^
But what "Bernie" was doing was the result of thinking that a second equation was distinct from the first, then combining the two to get that they are both the same.

Eg y+1=x=>y=x-1, and 2y+2=2x, replacing x-1 for y becomes 2x-2+2=2x=>x=x. The equations were simply the same relation from the start, so nothing new would come from using one on the other.

On the other hand, if the equations were different, and you had as many of those as unknowns, you would solve the system. Eg y=x-1 and x^2-y^2=9=>x^2-x^2+2x-1=9=>2x=10=>x=5=>y=4.
 
Last edited:
km3net_2x.png


Unfortunately, KM3NeT led to the discovery of the Pauli anglerfish, which emits Cherenkov radiation to prey on neutrino researchers.
 
Back
Top Bottom