Dark Humor

submitted by zyxzevn from (i.imgur.com)

all 9 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

Wrong! Its sqrt (-1) that belongs into this somehow.

[–]zyxzevn[S] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (7 children)

Let me try again:
1 + 1 = 

-exp(-i*PI) + d(x)/dx , were i= sqrt(-1)  =  
-exp(-i*PI) + d(x+k)/dx, where k is constant =  
-exp(-i*PI*k) + d(x+k)/dx, where k is constant integer =  
-exp(-i*PI*k) + d(x+k)/dk =  
d( -i*k*PI*exp( -i*PI*k) + x+k )/dk =

For k--> 0 we get: exp( 0) -> 1 

d( -i*k*PI* ( 1 ) + x+ 0 )/dk =  
d( -i*k*PI* 1 + x+ 0 ) /dk =  
d( -i*k*PI + x)/dk=  
(-i)*(-i)*PI* d(k+x)/dk=  
1* PI * 1 =  
PI

And we all know PI=3..
so:
1+ 1= 3

Explained here:

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

Now let me take my time. I most def get back to you: Thanks. Check for typing errors beforehand, please.

I cannot clean the blackboard for this before tomorrow evening.

Edit: Wrong usage of derivatives.

[–]zyxzevn[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I see that saidit removed some * and such. I will put it in code format.

[–]Raavan 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Wtf

I know this is a joke but I just HAVE to

I understood what you did until

d( -i*k*PI*exp( -i*PI*k) + x+k )/dk

You have done something I don't know/understand, or maybe made a mistake idk. I think what might fit in here is

d(e-iπk /(-iπ) + x + k)/dk

So when you differentiate you get

[e-iπk * (-iπ) ÷ (-iπ)] + 1

Edit: lookin at the video you linked now.

[–]zyxzevn[S] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

I did indeed mixed up the factor by the divisor in my hurry.
The integral of exp(x)= exp(x) as you understood, and I used that to extend exp(x) to d(exp(x)) / dx

Obviously, it is only a small error and does not influence the outcome. ;-)

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

You need your fellow mathematician to disprove this... I'm re-understanding the definition of your fkn wrong USAGE of derivatives right now !

Physicists are ALWAYS the first ones, that really believe (not more than that), they can fuck around with math.

And you know what: I know now EXACTLY why it's wrong, but i won't tell you any more.

[–]zyxzevn[S] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

For physics, almost correct is correct enough. For Maths it is different. ;-)

I think that theoretical physics also uses the:
1+2+3+4+5... = -1/12
Just to make one of their weird ideas work.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Yeah, i know this one. It's mathematically complete nonsense, but funny. No offense taken.