• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Lessons in maths.

You are wrong. 1X^0 = 1*X^0=1*1=1
The exponent does NOT raise the number to the left of the variable, it raises the variable.

And e is a constant, not a variable, an roughly equal to 2.71828

Is it possible for this equation to work with a different formula? i know it does work, within my own mind at least?
 
you call it math

the British call it maths

no right, no wrong, just a different label from a different part of the world :lol:

Let's not call the whole thing off.
 
Another theory i have been messing around with is that [x] / [y] equals [x] * [-y]? what does this mean, you may ask; well it is about the ease with which it is to multiply rather than divide, so we would have a better answer for [x] / [y] in [x] * [-y], yes?

This would mean that we could have [-xy] leaving a negative number as the answer. the obvious way forwards then is to simply make the negative number a positive number by leaving the minus sign out of it.

You are ****ing terrible at math.

Here's an idea: when you invent some dumb ass formula, try testing it before spamming these forums further.
 
Is it possible for this equation to work with a different formula? i know it does work, within my own mind at least?

Well judging by the rest of your posts it's no surprise it works in your mind. It seems that not much up there is concerned with reality.
 
In graphs of trigonometric functions, it deals with opposites finding the right values. all you need to do is use 360 degrees to calculate the slopes. this would mean that the slope equals point [a] and point with a slope between them, calculated by 'velocity' of the slope coming from the direction the wave is going, to the point the wave is at. you must remember that the 'velocity' is equal to twenty five percent of each value, in that it shares fifty percent between the two 'slopes,' and obviously fifty percent of that is going from one direction, to the neutral direction to the next neutral direction, to the second direction.

But, if you were to observe that in mathematics we use right angles and they can mirror each other, you merely calculate the difference between adding to subtracting from the 'plane,' yes?

I see pie comes up here a lot? well, pie is [22 / 7], so you could say [44 / 7] and half it, yes? this would come down to 6 remainder 2, and half of that is three remainder one. working with remainders is easy, as the answer is [1 / 7] = [14%] of the angle, of course.

But, back to this 'radian stuff.' if a half circle divided by pie is the angle we are looking for, then we need to take 14% = [12% remainder 12] for the correct angle. then, we need to take twelve into fourteen, which leaves us with 15.1 degrees for this radians and how they relate to trigonometric functions.
 
Let's see if we can deduct simple sums in maths? if we had a equation of [4a] + [6b] = [x], then we could also say that [x] - [6b] = [4a]. of course, this would mean that [x] - [4a] = [6b] too. we are trying to find a relationship between [4a] and [6b], of course.

Let's say that [1a] = [3.5] and [1b] = [8.3]? This would mean that the relationship would be [4a] or [14] and [6b] or [49.8] are the real values, leaving [x] at [63.8]. this means that the amounts would be impossible to tell apart, but, if we were to take the number values, we would get [4a + 6b] = [10x / 2] = [5] * [10] + [a + b] = [x]. somehow, the [a + b] has to equal [11.8] for this to work.

We could say that it is [10] + three values, so times by [0.6]? this would fit with the third, as there are three values, fitting with the [10], being halved would mean that we times the thirds by two, yes?
 
In graphs of trigonometric functions, it deals with opposites finding the right values. all you need to do is use 360 degrees to calculate the slopes. this would mean that the slope equals point [a] and point with a slope between them, calculated by 'velocity' of the slope coming from the direction the wave is going, to the point the wave is at. you must remember that the 'velocity' is equal to twenty five percent of each value, in that it shares fifty percent between the two 'slopes,' and obviously fifty percent of that is going from one direction, to the neutral direction to the next neutral direction, to the second direction.

But, if you were to observe that in mathematics we use right angles and they can mirror each other, you merely calculate the difference between adding to subtracting from the 'plane,' yes?

I see pie comes up here a lot? well, pie is [22 / 7], so you could say [44 / 7] and half it, yes? this would come down to 6 remainder 2, and half of that is three remainder one. working with remainders is easy, as the answer is [1 / 7] = [14%] of the angle, of course.

But, back to this 'radian stuff.' if a half circle divided by pie is the angle we are looking for, then we need to take 14% = [12% remainder 12] for the correct angle. then, we need to take twelve into fourteen, which leaves us with 15.1 degrees for this radians and how they relate to trigonometric functions.


yikes
 
"The modulus and argument of a complex number." this will see the complex number put into a module, which is a 'set' or equation of the problem you are dealing with.

The sum has a [2q + 360 degrees] meaning that it comes to a full circle plus the angle of the 'right angle' or vector. this means that you can measure the whole length as if in a right angle, and then find the ratio by taking the two 'length measurements,' of the right angle, and then taking those two angles and making them count out of ninety degrees. this would be where you need to take each measurement, say at three centimeters, as three goes into ninety degrees, then multiply it by 30.
 
So, it is safe to say that you can measure any angle by taking three centimeters of length and finding how many millimeters it is to the angle from each side. then you would only need to multiply it by thirty to get ninety degree angles. if it is a 91 - 180 degree angle, then you need to do the same multiplied by sixty, and of course the other ones also out of the maximum timed by like 90 and 120 respectively. this will give you the degrees, without having to get too involved.

Now i want to do something different. imagine a screw with a nut or bolt that has angles that can be gears - you know, those square type octagon square angles? - and then we will find the way to find the angles and measurements of these 'angles.'

This would be easier if we were to work an angle from an angle. this could be done by observing that it has eight by four dimensions, as two will be in each ninety degree angle block. then we could easily find the inside out, by observing that there are 1080 degrees on the outside of the 'graph.' this would see you 'closing' the graph and working in the right direction, with the graph being turned with regards to point of view, keeping the angles as small as possible.
 
So, it is safe to say that you can measure any angle by taking three centimeters of length and finding how many millimeters it is to the angle from each side. then you would only need to multiply it by thirty to get ninety degree angles. if it is a 91 - 180 degree angle, then you need to do the same multiplied by sixty, and of course the other ones also out of the maximum timed by like 90 and 120 respectively. this will give you the degrees, without having to get too involved. Now i want to do something different. imagine a screw with a nut or bolt that has angles that can be gears - you know, those square type octagon square angles? - and then we will find the way to find the angles and measurements of these 'angles.' This would be easier if we were to work an angle from an angle. this could be done by observing that it has eight by four dimensions, as two will be in each ninety degree angle block. then we could easily find the inside out, by observing that there are 1080 degrees on the outside of the 'graph.' this would see you 'closing' the graph and working in the right direction, with the graph being turned with regards to point of view, keeping the angles as small as possible.
Oh look, he invented trigonometry. Except wrong.
 
you call it math

the British call it maths
The Brits also say chips and crisps. They say boot and windscreen and torches and a lot of sh1t that doesn't make any sense. They drive on the wrong side of the road and they're letting Somalians and Romanians take over their country without firing a shot. The English are sort of retarded, and that's why our ancestors loaded into rickety wooden boats to sail for months to a dangerous land with no infrastructure. To get the hell away from those arrogant asses.
 
I see pie comes up here a lot? well, pie is [22 / 7], so you could say [44 / 7] and half it, yes? this would come down to 6 remainder 2, and half of that is three remainder one.
"Pie" is a form of pastry with either a sweet or savo(u)ry filling.
"Pi" is the Greek letter π and represents the radio of the circumference of a circle to its diameter, roughly equal to 22/7

But let me get this straight: "so you could say [44 / 7] and half it, yes?" Half of 44/7 is 22/7, so all you're doing is multiplying 22/4 by 2 and then dividing by 2. How are you getting "6, remainder 2" (not that I'm sure what that means: I haven't used remainders since, um, 1978.
 
"Pie" is a form of pastry with either a sweet or savo(u)ry filling.
"Pi" is the Greek letter π and represents the radio of the circumference of a circle to its diameter, roughly equal to 22/7

But let me get this straight: "so you could say [44 / 7] and half it, yes?" Half of 44/7 is 22/7, so all you're doing is multiplying 22/4 by 2 and then dividing by 2. How are you getting "6, remainder 2" (not that I'm sure what that means: I haven't used remainders since, um, 1978.

A remainder is a full number left over that does not fit.

Halving the greater equation gives you 3.1.
 
A remainder is a full number left over that does not fit.

Halving the greater equation gives you 3.1.
No it doesn't. Half of 44/7 is 22/7, right where you started.
And "3, remainder 1" is not the same thing as 3.1.
but double 3 remainder 1 is 7. So how can 7 be "3 remainder 2"? What did you divide by what to get 3 remainder 2?
You do not seem to be performing valid operations.
 
The Brits also say chips and crisps. They say boot and windscreen and torches and a lot of sh1t that doesn't make any sense. They drive on the wrong side of the road and they're letting Somalians and Romanians take over their country without firing a shot. The English are sort of retarded, and that's why our ancestors loaded into rickety wooden boats to sail for months to a dangerous land with no infrastructure. To get the hell away from those arrogant asses.

I like to take a lot of bath.
 
The Brits also say chips and crisps. They say boot and windscreen and torches and a lot of sh1t that doesn't make any sense. They drive on the wrong side of the road and they're letting Somalians and Romanians take over their country without firing a shot. The English are sort of retarded, and that's why our ancestors loaded into rickety wooden boats to sail for months to a dangerous land with no infrastructure. To get the hell away from those arrogant asses.

are you big on irony? :lol:
 
well, I don't have a problem with chips, and crisps and boot or any way people express themselves... but there is some irony there :mrgreen:

I thought that he came across as a shy and retiring chap. He obviously knows nothing about the UK. Enough derailing, back to the maths.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom