Don Blazys Posted November 2, 2008 Report Posted November 2, 2008 I'm quite new to posting in forums, and my computer skills are abysmal at best. Thus, with all the recent technical problems here at Hypography, I might have inadvertently moved my topic "A Mathematical Emergency" to the "strange claims" location, which is, in a sense, also where it belongs because the equation involved is indeed a prime example of truth being stranger than fiction. That said, I would now like to start a new topic about that same incredible equation that many of you have now come to either know and love..., or fear and hate. This time around, we will not be discussing how it applies to any major theorems, but instead will concentrate and focus our attention on the more obvious questions that it engenders. For those of you who may not have seen my equation yet, here it is. If T, a and x represent non-negative integers, then: (T/T)a^x=T(a/T)^((xln(a)/(ln(T))-1)/(ln(a)/(ln(T))-1)). Now, let's begin with the two simple questions: (1) Taken seperately, which side of this equation has the intrinsically better defined variables? and: (2) At T=1, is this equation in effect telling us that in principle, multiplication and/or division by unity automatically results in division by zero? Now let's muster up all our courage and explore these questions together! Regardless of your answer, I will play the "devils advocate" and assume the opposite position. That way, even those mathematicians with the most fragile egos can participate! Don.
C1ay Posted November 2, 2008 Report Posted November 2, 2008 Closed. There's already a thread on this equation here and no need for another.
Recommended Posts