-
-
Copy & paste this:
« Previous Advertisements on the Cheeseburger Sites | How Tolerable a Baby’s Noises Are Next »
» 464 TPS Reports
Leave a Reply
-
Latest Comments
partinobodycular on And TV Makes It Look so R… ... on Portion Sizes Have Grown, and … ... on Portion Sizes Have Grown, and … Senna on Portion Sizes Have Grown, and … oligi3008 on Beheading vs. Balding papajon0s1 on Portion Sizes Have Grown, and … ParrotPete on Portion Sizes Have Grown, and … FlatFace on Women on the Internet: From My… dolan on And TV Makes It Look so R… FlatFace on Portion Sizes Have Grown, and … SimPlus on Forever Unemployed CriticalQuit on Construction Site Hand Si… Ish Kabibble on Beheading vs. Balding Name on Hopefully Not in That Ord… The Bird Nerd on Hopefully Not in That Ord… 
Cheezburger Company Blog
![\"Quantcast\"/](\"http://pixel.quantserve.com/pixel/p-94wNw88f65Rhk.gif?labels=MTVN%20Digital%20Tribes\")
Awwww, that’s so sweet, even if it’s not a graph
I thought this was so cute, too! And the math is correct!
except tht at the end it switches from “>” to “<" which isnt corect
Its correct because it is being divided hence forth the sign changed… highschool?
Whilst is does need to be switched because the equation is being divided by -7, the switch in sign should occur on the second to last line. Not the last line.
The division happens in the step from line 2 to line 3. So that’s when the inequality sign should change.
When you divide with a number that has “-” the sign changes…
But wouldn’t it change when you divide by the -9 and then again by the -7 hence not changing it at all??
It isn’t dividing by -9, it’s subtracting 9 from both sides. >.<
general rule: when you divide an inequality [when the equation has "" instead of "="] with any negative number [a number with “-” beside it, you switch the inequality sign, which means, if you have “”, and when you have “>”, you switch it to “<" thats as simple as i can put it.
would have been more understandable for some sillies out there to have divided by 7 rather than -7, then switched the inequality to revers the -ve’s.
but yes, it is mathematically correct.
If dividing by a negative number takes place in an inequality, switch the alligator mouth to face the other way.
gtfo
Stfu you’re stupid! Learn your algebra. -9 there was a subtraction, not division. Noob
Incorrect.
U R right
Please go back to primary school.
You win
ur right ethan is wrong
lmfao that is how you own a nerd love it!!
Hell, even some middle schoolers know that.
yes, a lot of middle schoolers know this like me.
And me ;p
when the “=” is a “>” or a “<", and you divide by a negative, you have to switch the direction of the arrows! That's a negative 7 my friend.
“except tht at the end it switches from “>” to “<" which isnt corect"
yes, it is correct, dividing by a negative changes the sign
It actually is correct to switch the signs. When you divide by a negative, you flip it.
You have to switch the direction of the inequality when you multiply or divide by a negative.
actually it is correct, because you’re dividing by a negative number which causes the sign to flip.
yes it is.. if it is divided by a negitive the sign switches. juss so ya know lol
You’re a retard Ethan. The “<" is CORRECT!!! Whenever you divide both sides by a negative, you switch the signs. However, the "3" in the answer isn't supposed to be there.
Ethan i guess that makes you a retard because -21/-7=3 buddy boy
Wow! After I read the follow-ups, I didn’t realize how many people wrote the same thing. lol
DAMMIT!!! My bad. The “3″ is supposed to be there. Forget what I said in my first comment. rofl
actually… when dividing a negative, you switch the greater/less than sign to its opposite.
yes it is. when you divide/mulitply with a negative it switches the inequality sign.
No, it’s wrong, why do you switch the sign, prove it.
proving it for ethan.
Here’s an example.
consider comparing magnitude of intelligence…
I > U (because I am about to prove U wrong)
if we multiply (or divide) both sides by negative 1 we are now talking about magnitude of unintelligence – call it “dumbitude”
We then have -I > -U
This says I am even dumber than U (which is not true) thus a sign flip is needed
-I < -U
I am less dumb than U
I am smarter than U
lol love it.
i wish u were my math teacher XD when i know the backstory too it it makes me understand the problem so much better
obvious trollllolol
Actually it is correct. When multiplying or dividing both sides of an inequality by a negative number, the sign of the inequality switches direction.
Yes > turning to < is correct because you are dividing by a negative…
actualy it is because you switch the symbols when you divide negative numbers
It is correct. When you divide by negative numbers with inequalities you switch the symbols.
it is correct u divide by a minus so the signs switch
Think before you type
When u divide by a negative you flip the greater than sign because the negative changes the importance of relative magnitudes. (A large negative is less than a small negative while a small positive is less than a large positive)
your maths nerdiness > 9000
idiot, when deviding or multiplying by a negative you switch the signs
if you divide an inequality by a negative #, the sign changes
if you divide by a negetive, the sign switches.
Yes it is correct. Check your rules on algebra.
yeah it does when you divide by a negative to the other side it switches the sign and gets rid of the negative
it is correct, you suppost to change it when you either divide or multiply with negatives .
It is correct because when you divide by a Negative number the inequality sign must be switched around . That’s basic Algebra .
it is correct.. u switch the sign in the end
dude…it is perfectly correct….it seeme that u never had studied linier inequalitie im mathamatics
Actually it is right.. when you put the 7 to the other side, the sign switches.
Yes it is, idiot. When you multiply or divide by a negative the sign flips.
it is correct because when you divide by a negative number you switch the sign
No it is correct. In this type of equation you have to do that at the end idiot
yeah actually the switch of the is correct cause when you divide by a negative you have to change it, algebra 101.
You divide by a negative, so it is correct.
thank you, someone gets it!
it is correct because when you divide an inequality by a negative you flip the sign.
No. It is correct. When you divide by a negative the sign ALWAYS switches.
It is correct. because dividing by the negative switches the inequality sign.
it is correct because when its negative you have to switch “>” to “<"
you’re stupid. u know? if u divide it with a negative number the sign will change! dang! ur dumb
3u became greater than i, that’s why > switched to <
to contradict that 9x-7i is not greater than 3(3x-7u)
Well, your not smart enough, when you divide in an equation by a negative number (or murtiply) if it has , < with the line on top or vise versa you are suppossed to change the way it does (:
When you divide by a negative in an inequality, the sign flips.
u idiot, when u divide by a -1 on each side, the inequality flips -___-
When you divide by a negative number the inequality sign is swapped…
it is correct when you divde by a negative
It is to correct by the fact when you divide or multiply by a negative the symbol is switched.
Yes it is. When you divide by a negative the sign changes
whenever multiplying or dividing by a negative, change the inequality sign’s direction
actually when you divide by a negative number the sign switches side or flips
yes it is you switch the sign when you divide/multiply by a negative
that was correct.. dividing or multiplying a negative number on both sides of the inequality reverse equality symbol.. that is the Multiplication property of Inequality..
that was *inequality not equality typo-error..
no it isn’t, because i is a known value
WTF!???? whats with this????
haha fail.
the answer to the problem says i love you, written i<3u
Thank you for that clarification, I finally understand that now.
THAT is F***ING FANTASTIC!!! That is the best thing I’ve seen today… And it’s 11:55 PM! You’ve made my day graphjam
Plus the 3 looks like lips. kinda threw me.
It suppose to aretard, the sign changes because you divided it.
BA1
How does that say “i love you”?? I see the i and the u, but “<3" doesn't say love…
Look at the <3 side ways.
xcuse me but whats the point of 9x on both sides?
why not just
-7i>-21u
or assuming you want the girl u love to be creeped out by u? or the girl is a somewhat nerd, which even if u get together you’re more likely to cheat on her later in life with drunk blond girl in the bar, in which she will most likely divorce you if she finds out and taking half of your property( i know its a lot of “ifs” but this could be a life long lesson) and anyways aren’t humans suppose to think of consequences before acting?(in this case giving the note to the girl)
excuse me but what’s the point of your comment?
Did you not read it? I’m pretty sure I explained everything, in detail…
loving the optimism
Sounds like a bit of misandry being not-so casually placed in a pessimist comment. That, or happy face just hates nerdy girls.
Either way it was rather failish(either because it’s misandry fail and rather irksome from pessimism, or it’s a nerdy girl love fail, and I have a some-what nerdy girlfriend. I love her so OwO).
happy face has obviously never been laid
I like your style.
Hooray for pessimism!
Actually, the only negative consequences you would incur in your statement would be from going out and cheating on the girl, not handing her the note. Presuming she IS the type who finds that kind of thing sweet, then if you manage to get together partly because of it, I only see positive consequences.
was there really a need for this comment?
Arguing on the internet is like running the special olympics. Even if you win, you’re still a retard.
No.
Yup.
no.
lol, dude’s reply was better than the post anyways
haha i like that
so true
It’s called a polynomial inequality. You might be surprised to find that a lot of inequalities end up with similar properties on both sides that can be eliminated as you simplify.
Doing a little math here and there might make this less pointless to you.
you are an idiot.
i am diggin your name dude.
wow u serious this is awesome
it is cute and really sweet
i mean im not smart enought to come up with that but any guy willing to is really sweet and caring
i thought it was awesome the best thing ive seen today
are you freaking stupid *happy face*??? It starts as a 3(3x blah blah blah) so you multiply 3x by 3 making 9! If you are in a work place and are working a budget, than that part of the problem will not be done for you, you have to just simplify it. dumbass did you not pass high school?
Omg, I love you. (:
And you probably know this from experience.
umm so wait a drunk blonde can’t also be smart enough to figure this out? it’s not that hard to do
Why must it be a bar? We’ve got planes, trains, and automobiles. And you haven’t even factored in your young adopted son David whose life is shattered due to your actions and is wishing he was with his drug addict Uncle Benny. You even forgot to add that your wife has been screwing her coworker for the past few years and is now pregnant with his child. So half of your property will certainly be enough for her unborn child, David, and herself. This is the part of the story where you go against giving the note to a nerdy girl.
Happy Face is apparently… not so happy.
when you divide by a negetive # you switcg the direction of the sign
21 dollars, oh wait.
Lovely maths.
lol
easy ‘equation’ (if it’s that in English?). But there are an infinite ‘equations’ with “i<3u" as an outcome.
it would actually be an inequality, seeing as the two values being compared are not equal.
I totally agree, this isn’t an equation at all.
Kill joy.
No where does the maker claim that this is the only thing out there that can come to i<3u.
There’s a lot of ways to get to love.
But there are only 50 ways to leave your lover.
(I think this is one.)
You just made my day.
therefore there’s a lot of ways of making “i<3u"
Like i=1 and u=2 xD
And just how would you go about writing down an infinite amount of equations, let alone putting them in a single graphic?
Uh, why does the “greater than” sign randomly change to a “less than” sign at the end?
FAIL.
…some one didn’t graduate High School.
I was asleep that day.
And who uses math in the real world?
Engineers, accountants, scientists, teachers, programmers, pharmacists, architects, you know… all those people.
*WHOOSH*
Congratz, you fail!
LMAO!
Finally, another erik who’s name ends with K!! I thought I was alone.
Oh, I’m still confident that you’re alone.
you know all those people who make an ass-ton more money than you? yeah, them.
ass-ton.
Oh, thats beautiful.
Ass-ton, nice word. gonna be using that now. thanks!
Whammy!
Gamers also use math all the time
Right, because computers are nothing but 1s and 0s…
I swear, I saw a 2 somewhere in there.
Sure there is!
10 is 2.
There are only 10 types of people in the world. Those that understand binary numbers and those that don’t.
That joke is older than Pythagoras’ Theorem!
actually there are only 10 types of people in the world, those that understand binary, those that undesrtand trinary and those who don’t.
actually, i’m pretty sure there are only 10 kinds of people in the world, people who can use systems other than base 10 (and therefore figure this out), and those who can’t.
10 x 10 = 100 AND 10 + 10 = 100? Well, then… Binary must be twice as good as decimal then.
It also makes hide and seek easier.
1
10
11
100! Here I come!
everything around you.. everything you see involves math or numbers or equation or the combinations of those…. take for example that t-shirt you’re wearing… without math……. it might not fit on you… sleeve on one side might be bigger than the other…. you need math to come up with the right colour of your t-shirt….. how bout car? pencil? money?……. ; )
No, everything around you can be approximated and represented with math, usually t a pretty close degree. However it is not math. Matn is something humans invented to represent real worl things in an abstract way.
Math? Abstract?
/mindboggle
humans did not invent math. Math has been around for all of eternity
Hmmm, not convinced. Math is abstract. I think a mind is required.
hey coms: lame answer, great buzzkill.
obviously someone asking what use is math is obviously still in elementary school and wouldn’t be bothered to read your “witty” comment
I use it to amuse myself when I’m bored.
Graduated FROM High School. You wouldn’t say “the surgeon operated his patient.”
All writing should have correct grammar, unless it is attached to a picture of a cat.
But you WOULD say “the surgeon operated his patient like a puppet.”
I’m pretty sure you can be struck off for that kind of stuff.
Or “The surgeon operated his computer.”
but you would also never say “patient operant” or “surgeon operant” the way you would “high school graduate.” “Graduated” as in cylinder doesn’t have the same syntax as “graduated” as in school.
Someone didn’t pay attention in English class.
zappafrank’s actually right. the sign doesn’t need to change cos there are two negative signs on each side. so it reverses once, then once more.
FAIL.
Seriously, open your textbook for the first time, will you? When it is multiplied by a negative throughout, the inequality inverts. You utterly fail.
i’m in 8th grade and i know this.
what is the world coming to.
i’m a sixth grader and even i knew that. i am in the advanced class though…
Pfft, I knew it too. High five, up top
High Fives, I am too!
math wasn’t so hard yea
u just fail
think before u comment
and read before u think,will ya?
someone didnt graduate eh?
thats me!
im still in 2nd year.
Because you’re inverting the sign on both sides
My “FAIL” was obviously in response to my own statement. So I actually trumped you all in calling me on my mistake.’
Yeah, that’s the ticket…
Not. Funny.
good point -7i/-7 = 7i/7, and -21u/-7 = 21u/7. So the 1st should keep being bigger in the end.
I dont know anything about unreal numbers (english name?), but i don’t it would change anything…
8)
Actually, the -7 in the denominator represents division by -7, in which case the sign must reverse.
lol I just went over this in algebra today.
i stands for “imaginary”, although unreal is a pretty good approximation, I’ve heard it called by both terms
In this case it just happens to be “i” as a variable and not representing an imaginary number which is usually done with an i in italics. Also in that case i = the square root of -1
The flipping is because it is an inequality. When dividing an inequality by a negative you must flip the sign.
-7>-21 but 7<21
Devide by negative, and the ‘greater than’ sign turns to a ‘less than’.
It’s basic high school stuff.
Divide by negative = Flip sign
Divide by zero = fun fun fun!
and yes, that’s right, I just wanted to put the joke in an appropriate spot.
Because it divides out the -7 on both sides.
the greater than sign changes to the less than sign because you are dividing fractions… just a silly math rule lol
*coughs*Negatives Dividing by negatives
makes a positive?
In solving for something in an inequality, when you divide by a negative number on both sides, you flip the sign.
You FAIL.
It changes randomly at the end because the graph has an error.
The third line should have read: -7i/-7 < -21u/-7
Consider: i = 1, u = 1. This satisfies i < 3u, as 1 -21u/-7 becomes 1 > 3, and that’s obviously false. Everything above is still true with i = 1 and u = 1, but the third line is not, so it’s the third line that messes up here, since the author forgot to flip the side when he should have.
it cut out a piece there:
if i = 1, u = 1, then i < 3u becomes 1 < 3*1 (which is true)
but the third line is then false.
This is because the third line is the one that's incorrect here. It's sign should be flipped.
Not necessarily true. It’s not until after the division is done that you flip the sign. In this instance, it’s line 4 that has the division completed, line 3 is just showing the division being set up. The first half of line 3 is a result of simplifying line 2, and at that point, no division has been done so they cannot flip the sign. The portion written below it is the setup to get to line 4, at which point you don’t actually write the sign being flipped until you actually DO the division and simplify it.
you cannot test the inequality with, i=1 and u=1, because i is a constant and it is equal to the sqrt(-1)
nevermind, i guess i is a variable
Hello, math, i is equal to the square root of negative one. Thus, u is all real numbers greater than one. That is the only way this equation is true. Either way, i is less than 3u when u is equal to all real numbers greater than or equal to -1.
Because when you divide by a negative, the sign flips.
like, 1 -2
Instead of needlessly insulting you (which seems to be the internet standard) how about an explanation?
Whenever you multiply or divide a negative number when you are dealing with inequalities you reverse the inequality symbol.
Check here for a more in depth explanation.
http://mathforum.org/library/drmath/view/53177.html
-7i > -21u
— —–
-7 -7
-7 -21
— * i > —- * u
-7 -7
1 * i > 3 *u
i > 3*u
There is no division by a negative number that changes the sign.
The -7 is divided by -7. That makes 1.
The -21 is divided by -7. That makes 3.
Therefore, no change of the sign.
The proposal is funny, but false.
There is no division by a negative number that changes the sign.
The -7 is divided by -7. That makes 1.
The -21 is divided by -7. That makes 3.
Therefore, no change of the sign.
The proposal is funny, but false.
Grrrr…. font keeps messing up.
-7i/-7 > -21u/-7
(-7/-7) * i > (-21/-7) * u
(1) * i > (3) *u
i > 3*u
There is no division by a negative number that changes the sign.
The -7 is divided by -7. That makes 1.
The -21 is divided by -7. That makes 3.
Therefore, no change of the sign.
The proposal is funny, but false.
i’m 14 and i already know that when an inequality is divided by a negative number it goes from greater than to less than or vice versa, seriously
they divided by a negative, genius…
the greater than sign switches to a less than sign because at the end you have to divide by a negative seven. when you do this, the inequality must switch.
The sign changes because both sides of the inequality are negative. When you change them to positive (ie, multiplying both sides by-1) the symboli reverses. I’m really bad at math too so I understand why that would be confusing…
I thought this was lovely until everyone started ranting about inequalities. Chill out. It’s cute.
Because when you divide or multiply both sides of an inequality with a negative number, you have to flip the sign.
(I’m thirteen and learned this last year…wow.)
Haha yea, im sitting here thinking, “‘graduated highschool’? i learned this is 7th grade, algebra 1…”
uh cuz when you divide with a negative it changes to a positive you FAIL
lol THANK you for noticing. I knew somebody would notice but i can’t believe i had to scroll this far down to see it. God people come on.
when you move a negative number across an inequality sign you flip the greater than/less than symbol so that you do not have a negative number in front…
my question is: who DOESN’T use math in the real world?
Airline attendants! At the bottom level at least.
Because you’re dividing off a negative coefficient.
idiot. when you divide by a negative number, the inequality sign flips around
It switches because it is dividing by a negative number. I am in seventh grade and I know this
Because there’s a rule in Algebra that says when dividing by a negative in an inequality the inequality sign must change to the opposite.
FAIL.
changing signs in an inequality switches greater than to less than or vice versa. backtrack the math, or use an example, you’ll get it
im only in eighth grade and i understood why the sign changed. talk about idiotic people.
Utterly fantastic. Seriously.
This GraphJam = Made of Win
Um, total fail. i = sqrt (-1) Always. There is no “solve for i”.
… you cannot have inequalities with imaginary numbers.
i is a variable in this context. not the imaginary number i.
To claim that i is a variable in this context is the same as saying “over here, pi is a variable… it’s not *really* pi, it’s a different pi”. i has a set value.
i is frequently a variable in mathematics. Admittedly it’s usually an index, but it’s still entirely valid. The same goes for e too.
Note my comment about context. I have *never* seen it used as a variable unless it’s an index. Granted, all my math classes were taught by people as pedantic as I. I’d rather be pedantic than confused, or require a pre-solving explanation of the use of common mathematical terms as variables in this context blahblahblah.
Ugh.
So just capitalize it and solve for “the integral” I.
That, you have seen.
Actually, when my calculus class got into three dimensional equations, the second most common set of variables we used was i, j, and k. (The first was x, y, and z, unsurprisingly).
Yep, same here, that variable set also gets used a lot in matrices.
You can claim that pi (alpha, e, i and all the others) is a variable at any time as long as you’re consistent.
Well, sure. I can also consistently claim 4 is a variable, too. Makes phone numbers hard when I’ve got to start giving one of the digits as “3+1″, though.
Haha, fair enough. Cheers.
The difference is that your claim would be counted as a fault if you write that down at a test, and maestro’s claim wouldn’t. (This is the thing you have to say to people trying to be a smart ass, really try this, it works!)
Eh, you see both of those things (i and pi) used in econometrics as variables, and it doesn’t seem to ruffle a lot of feathers. Pretty sweet work here.
hahaha Rebecca got TOLD!
pi is used for osmotic pressure. so yea, actually, you would say ‘over here, pi is a variable’.
and if you’ve ever done any computer programming (doubtful since you’ve never heard of a high school chemistry concept…you clearly don’t have that much schooling) then you’ve used the variable i in for loops.
I’ve spent a fair part of the past three weeks writing and reviewing coding standards for a new project at work.
So while you can use “i” for loops, you should really give it a sensible name (such as “iCommentIndex” or “iAddressLoop”) otherwise you might forget what it is you are looping through
In every single coding project I’ve worked on, and in every standard I’ve read, index variables are the exception to the “descriptive names” rule, and not without good reason. I, j, and k are the de-facto standard set of loop indices; adding “loop” or “index” at the end is redundant. This is especially true for anything named “i…Index”, since i stands for index. You should never, ever have a problem “forgetting” what you’re looping through due to your index name, either; any non-trivial code block should be commented. Using long names for your indices can get damn ugly if you’re using them frequently inside a block of code, which makes it harder to read and maintain. Just looking at a very simple example:
for iWidthLoop in width:
for jHeightLoop in height:
exampleValue[iWidthLoop] = max(myArray[iWidthLoop][jHeightLoop], myArray[jHeightLoop][iWidthLoop])
for i in width:
for j in height:
exampleValue[i] = max(myArray[i][j], myArray[j][i])
There are cases when it makes a lot of sense to name your index variables, but they aren’t the norm, and I can’t imagine your suggestions for “sensible” names would be of very much help.
Personally I’ve used pi to describe stationary distributions and also profit and inflation in economics. Just because you haven’t seen it doesn’t mean that a lot of people don’t go around using that symbol in a different way.
There is no reason to think in the context of what was stated that i=sqrt(-1),i is obviously a variable if the first line says to solve for it.
Yeah…. you’re right, it is like that, except “pi” is a silly variable name.
so what you’re saying is that nerd love does not exist?
…that’s so sad.
Interesting “logical” leap. a and b are mutually exclusive, yet if !a then !b.
Nerd love exists. Real nerd love doesn’t require destroying understood mathematical concepts to “prove” itself. Real nerds in love completely get that.
Interestingly enough, when my husband posted the “equation” to me, he pouted that I didn’t treat i as a variable. Hmmmm.
Wait a sec – can’t you manipulate i in equations as if it were a variable? I mean, sure, it would be unusual to solve for i where the only unknown in the equation is u…but it doesn’t seem like there’s anything incorrect about it. Am I missing something?
Hmm. So we’d have sqrt(-1) < 3u? Good point. I like it. Win.
No, Rebecca. The point is you’re an idiot and you fail like so many others here.
Absolutely, perfect point. for instance, you could give
pi(2x+3)>8(24x+7)
and say solve for pi, whether you are treating it as a variable or not.
And now I’m done. Gotta get some actual work, done. Thanks for the debate, guys!
Noo…it’s a variable.
“p” denotes most prime numbers, does that mean p = 2×3 is prime?
“e” is the Oiler number, but I don’t quite see how it fits in e = 3-1
“m” stands for mass, yet how come we can have 1-m = 15/7?
All I see is a total math fail in you.
Historical fail in you then, usually e isn’t the Oiler number but the Euler one.
lol! the Oiler number would be o, don’t you think
Anyway, if -7i > -21u => -49i > 441u (square ‘em, that’s what you best do with i) => u < -1/9. So basically I think this says nerds are one short of a ninepack…
If in this context i was indeed denoting the root of -1, which it isn’t, the inequality wouldn’t make sense from the start anyway since there is no ordering to the complex numbers, meaning inequalities are meaningless.
Sorry, but to Greek it is Όιλερ and I am Greek.
English fail for me then, but I dont care.
Yeah, ‘i’ can be a variable. There are plenty of letters that denote other things such as v being velocity or m being mass. I think ‘u’ actually stands for initial velocity but no one is complaining about that one.
Hell, in physics, ‘i’ means current. So unless the square root of -1 is equal to current then we’ve got a really big problem here. (Actually, I think current might be capital i, but that’s down to my terrible physics skills).
To put it in an obvious context, triangle RST isn’t made up of resistance, speed and time. Variables can be any letter without actually denoting a preset figure or meaning. We’d need a lot more letters.
Someone else basically said this, but no one seemed to take it on board so…yeah. (: (Oh, and by the way, I suck at math. So what I just said was probably completely innaccurate.)
I is the moment of inertia in physics.
Hey, I’m Ben too! High five!
i could also stand for the unit vector , or it could just be a variable standing for whatever the writer of this equation wanted it to.
Not in Python it doesn’t. Not in Matlab.
i is not always equal to the square root of negative one. in electrical engineering i is most often used as the variable for current, with j being the square root of negative one. while such constants as i and pi are universal, their representations are not, and must be taken in context.
thank u someone finally got it but it took this far for anyone to stop talking about the inequality itself and how i already has a value the entire inequality fails from the beginning before any math is even done
aww…i should send this to my boyfriend…
I think I’m gonna do that myself.
Why would you send this to Gia’s boyfriend?
Win
Let’s ALL send it to Gia’s boyfriend!
What’s his e-mail address?
haha im game ♥
So this is saying that I am less then 3 of you? Well, duh! Unless I’m Manuel Uribe and you’re…uh…Yoko Ono.
That is not for nerds…actually, anybody with a slight knowledge of maths can pull that off.
The trick would be to add cosines and tangents to make it a hardcore inequality.
Inquality = bad
it’s bad mmkay?
No it’s not.
i heartily concur with MLK Jr
It’s for nerds becasue only nerds would use a math equation, no matter how simple, so express I love you.
Of course a geek who is a wanna be nerd would try to break down ans find some ‘flaw’ in the equation by taking out of context information and trying to shoe horn it in. Or throw about some abstract terms to make it ‘harder’.
I did it with an integral once when I was really bored in class. That tricky enough for you? I’d type it up, but I can’t type the necessary characters. Basically though it was along the lines of I < integral(3)du with a bunch of extra stuff thrown in to make it more complicated.
if you know how to use ALT codes you could type the characters
Trigonometry:
The most hardcore math in existence.
Give me a break. ._.
I like this, but removing the spaces works for me…i<3u
This graph is awsome; it’s the idea that matters, not the exact calculation, you nerds……..
wow, this is cool…. some people on here took it way out of proportion….get a life
This is definetly the best graph on GraphJam.
WIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
amazing “graph” for once. only problem is its been like 8 years since ive been in a math class but i shouldnt it be -21u/-7u? shouldnt it be -7u in order to divide them properly?
…once again its been a long time so i dont remember. plus someone probably already mentioned this…
No, it’s correct as is.
nope, -21u/-7u=3, not 3u
Coming from a Dr. of Math…..this is just lame.
Hmm, didn’t realise getting a doctorate meant handing in your sense of humor… I’d better stop at the Masters level.
What the hell is a Dr f Math?
If you were a Dr. of Math you would say it:
A Dr. of Maths or a Dr. of mathematics.
You Fail at lying.
Graph Jam FAIL
Yeah I saw the change from “more than” to “less than” and I had my doubts.. But it is right.. It’s like you divide the equation by 7, which leaves a negative “i”, so to change it positive you multiply both sides by “-1″ and therefore the “>” changes. It is a double step but helps you to see the problem easier rather than having too much to deal with. Sometimes we even forget those elemental things (I’m studying Civil Engineering).
Good graph jam, though it could only attempt to impress smart girls lol…
SUPERFLY!!!
This is adorable!
Also a little creepy because I just reviewed this math today in class.
aww
i<3u^2
You heart me when I’m squared? Why can’t you just heart me the way I am?
I heart you to the power of you, silly.
To the power of two, rather.
well you could have i<3u^u, and manipulating the words by cheating a bit you could say i heart u for the power of you, or somehting really cheezy like that
why not just give it a bracket? make it (i<3u)^2 ,so that when it's expanded it's i<3u i<3u , and not i<3uu…
Ummm… I don’t know, probably the same reason you can’t say
(x=3)^2 expands to x=3 x=3
It doesn’t make any sense. O-o’
You’re doin it wrong
Not that the math involved is terribly difficult, but I guess in this day and age, getting a significant percentage of the population to add, subtract, multiply and divide when inequalities are involved is a feat unto itself.
Apart from the fact that anyone with a working knowledge of mathematics and will look at “i” as the sqrt(-1) and not as a variable (which is what makes the whole matter “work” in the first place, it is entirely possible to start with the given inequality and end up with the rather useless “3u > i”.
“i” can’t be a variable!
i=-1
Any nerd knows that!
i = -1?
i =/= -1
because
i^2 = -1
i = sqrt(-1)
… but regardless, you can always just capitalize the i and change it to an I.
i could also be the unit vector .
Or it could just stand for, you know, whatever.
Why would you be the unit vector?
xD
Rofl. The level of fail in your statement is immeasurable.
“i” can indeed be a variable, there’s no reason not for it to be.
Furthermore i is not -1… that would be rather useless. I assume you’re thinking of the imaginary unit i=(-1)^(1/2), which still does not constrain i from ever being a variable.
Before you make claims in such a rude way, you should check your facts.
Shouldn’t the sign be switched on the second line and not on the last?
Nerds do not exist. Nerdisms are a threat to the success of society, and perpetuated by popular culture. Because of nerdisms, people subconsciously associate science, math and engineering with being “socially inept” thus avoiding such unpopular fields. We are running out of scientists in the US and soon China, because of their immense quantity of engineers and scientists will become the world superpower.
im sry but based on wat ive seen so far on this debate alone, including me, yes nerds do exist
absoposilutely. the whole being of “graphjam” is based entirely on nerdism! you think someone who is scared of association with math deeming him socially inept would create a graphs about pop culture and well-known social rules and stuff like that?
The second line he is subtracting 9x from each side, not dividing, therefor the sign shouldn’t be switched at that point. It should be switched at the 3rd line, as it was shown here. Original poster did it correctly. I can assure you. Just look it over again.
i is used as a variable by engineers, to denote current from
what I recall. This is why engineers use j for sqrt(-1).
yep, we do, though the joke that’s missing from the thread is that “i” is imaginary.
At first I read it as “I (am) less than three (of) you”….and then I bought a flippin’ clue and figured it out. <3
As for the validity of the equation, I will leave the sorting-out to the rest of you mathletes. CHEERS!
OK.. I’m brain dead. Can someone explain why i<3u is romantic?
because <3 looks like a heart lying on its side
the <3 is meant to look like a heart.
Because <3 looks a bit like a sideways heart, and hearts are often used as a replacement for the word "love" in the phrase "I love you."
Yay! Thank you! I had to read to the end of these comments to get it. I kept reading it as “I am less than three of you”, which didn’t make a lot of sense.
how “I am less then three of you” didn’t made sense to you? its still correct
Yeah, but as romantic comments go, it lacks poetry
kinda, but at the same time it is kinda poetic. it’d be cool if it was i am less than 1/3 of you, cuz that would mean three of me dont even equal your awesomeness, but at the same time then it’d be I<1/3u, which, without the 1, looks like i am not in love with you, making it counterproductive….
So here’s where I get lost. As I understand it, imaginary numbers such as i, the square root of -1, cannot be used in an inequality…
Scroll up buddy, this argument has already taken place.
“i” in this situation is a variable with no defined value.
Isn’t this math wrong? If you divide the left side by nine, you have to do it to the number 7 as well
well, nobody divided both sides by nine. they subtractred 9x from boths sides. it still works out.
The math is wrong. The answer would be 3i>u, because multiplying (or dividing) both sides of an inequality by a negative integer would ‘flip’ the inequality sign.
Nice try anyway.
wow… You sir just made me want to quit school more. You say you are a teacher? you don’t have to flip it. you fail.
Sorry for the typo. Should have been 3u > i
3u > i is the same as i < 3u, right?
Yes vinco, you are correct, and mathteacher is incorrect. But it’s okay mathteacher, it happens to all of them, not just you.
Why do teachers make clever kids feel wrong? i mean c’mon. this is just embarrassing
Rofl @ “mathteacher”
Yes, I totally believe that you have any credibility in the realm of mathematics when you don’t recognize that 3u>i is IDENTICAL to i<3u.
At least don't lie to us, name yourself something like "averageinternetuser."
You can’t use imaginary numbers in inequalities…
Sure you can! Just means u is probably complex. Something
many relationships have done well to teach me. *cough*
If u = i/2 (as an example)
3u = 3i/2
3i/2 > i
i is not being used as an imaginary number here. It’s a variable, and you can tell that by them saying ‘solve for i’.
I’m sorry. I never jumped on the “<3" as "heart" bandwagon.
I read this as "I is less than three of you."
you’re saying that u read it as ” I = < three of you"?
is means = in math
well dude, the math is ALLL correct
So much controversy over something that’s entirely correct.
Much like evolution or Vaccines.
People who don’t research before spouting off are 1D10t5
thats rly cute =]
<3
Sheer and romantic smartiepants.
okay guys .
this is called a picture that`s supposed to be sweet and cute .
why are you guys being so picky about the math ?
get over it .
if you`re gonna correct math then maybe this isnt the site for you .
Apparently someone never took programming in college…
FAIL
Am I the only one that’s realised that this is actually wrong? I mean, -7/-7 = 1 and -27/-3 = 3, so there’s no sign change at the end; so you end up with i>3u, which is much less romantic!
you are wrong.
Not to jump on the band wagon, but that’s not true.
At the end, you get “-i > -3u”, which means that i must be a smaller absolute number than 3*U is (because -5 is > -10 for example). So when you remove both negative signs, then the 3u (10 in this case) must be greater than the i (5).
Algebra is much easier with actual numbers
also, since when is -27/-3=3?
hmmm… a lot of people on this site dont know math
and those who do dont know how to explain math to retards
It’s difficult to explain anything to retards. That’s the whole point of them being retards.
since when did love have to make sense?
what I don’t get….
where did this guy get 9x, 7i, and whatever else he used from?
to me it seems like he just started with a bunch of random numbers, and simplified it down to i<3u
this is nothing special. i could say:
8i+20x = 4(5x+10u)
8i = 40u
i = 5u
i<3u
wow. i proved i<3u. aren't I intelligent…
If someone can tell me where he got his numbers from, that had any relevance to anything, I'd be glad to hear it.
ah. woops. realized my equation was horribly wrong after i posted it. let me give a better one.
8i+20x = 4(5x+4u)
8i = 16u
i = 2u
i<3u
The maker of this had no reason for choosing those specific numbers, but he/she does seem to know algebra. Unlike you. Make sure to check your math again.
2u is not necessarily smaller than 3u. And 5u is perhaps smaller than 3u. You must start with an inequality, or let u equal a set value before you begin your proof.
well that not quite alright. cause if u3u. ex: u=-2=>i=-4, and that would mean that -4<-6(-4<3(-2)) and that wrong……
the graphjam if awesome anyway:)
Right, the creator did start with an arbitrary inequality. The point was to disguise a message a standard problem of arithmetic manipulation. There were an infinite number of points from which he/she could have begun; his is just as arbitrary as yours, but he/she had to choose one.
The graphjam end result is correct, while the process is confusing.
You can keep it simple and avoid division by -7 this way.
Original expression: 9x – 7i > 3(3x – 7u)
Expand the bracket: 9x – 7i > 9x – 21u
Just delete 9x from each side: -7i > -21u
Now divide by 7 – no need to flip anything: -i > -3u
Now flip the inequality: i <3 u
Surely each step is valid, one at a time.
What confuses is the choice of divisor -7.
Try i = 3, and u =2: Then 3 -6. True.
Sorry, the last line has lost the inequality.
Should read:
Try i = 3, and u = 2: Then 3-3u, and using the same variables, -3 > -6. True
I don’t understand why, but the posted math always seems to lose some characters. Let’s revise it anyway;
The last line of my last post could have read:
Try i = 3, and u = 2: Then 3 -6. True.
Also, discussing i as being sqrt(-1) is a red herring. “i “can always be a variable, unless you define it as the imaginary vector. In computer languages, i and n are often used as integer values, and x, y etc as real (decimal) numbers.
I don’t know what is happening, but the action of posting has removed and changed several parts of my posts. While it is perhaps excessive to keep on about it, I would really like to make my point. So I put it in words.
The last line of my earlier post could have read:
Try i = 3, and u = 2: Then 3 less than 6. True.
And, using the same variables, -3 is greater than -6. True.
If this isn’t posted correctly, I shall contact the site technical boffs.
So..the ex must disappear?
LOL! Very true~
hAhahaha. Win.
I did the math on this, and doesn’t it end up
i > 3u?
Unless I’m a complete retard, (very possible) it should start
9x-7i < 3(3x-7u)
Oh, crap, I forgot to flip the inequality when I divided by a negative…
I know I saw this a few months ago elsewhere. Congratulations to Tsukasasou for ripping off teh Interwebs.
So adorable!
http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=9x-7i%3E3%283x-7u%29&a=i_Variable
Haha this is how my friends does most of his math homework.
Geeze… I didn’t think people would be this up in arms about a little math. XD Thanks to the people who liked it. I was really bored one day and put that together. I made the problem using by going backwards though, so the numbers are basically random. I’m sure someone could have done it much better, and I’m sure it’s elsewhere on the internet. But please do at least enjoy it at face value. =P
And it’s completely correct! Some people are just silly.
can we not just appreciate the thing for what it is, rather than over-analyze every minute detail and get all hot under the collar?
this stuff shouldn’t matter so much. we get it. you’re smarter than everyone else. so am i.
This is totally cute. ^^ This is one of the reasons I prefer nerdy boys over the jocks. They know how to be sweet and dedicated to a girl, as opposed to a jock who doesn’t give a care about anyone but themselves. Maybe I’m being stereotypical by saying that, but I’ve never met a jock that I’ve ever been impressed by, but the nerds know how to treat a girl right. X3
you guys do realize that continuously using big words every other word doesn’t make you look smart? it makes you look like you’re tying too hard lmao
i c whut u did thar
i thought it was I fu*k you because it was a di*k and balls… Am I sick?
lol…. i don’t think so, cause now that you mention it..it kinda makes sense
)
i think you would have to divide the numbers by seven not subtract because then you wouldnt have >3u youd have <-24u
am i right?
i still love this thought
really cute
xD
I think your incorrect.
In this situation, you normally would try to get the variable you need alone, thus getting the 9x out of the way. So then you have -7i>-21u
You don’t need a negative variable, and when you divide or multiply by a negative, you must flip the sign around, thus getting i<3u (i is less than 3u)
Well, I think. I haven't done this stuff since March.
YOUR MATH FAILS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Aaawwww so sweeet!
cool idea, but this is wrong. on a couple of levels. i is a hard variable to use (its not an integer people) because it already has a purpose in math. it states the impossibility of a number. e.g. the square root of -9 would be 3i because you cant square root a (-) number, i states that it is out of the realm of “real” numbers. 2) the greater then sign changes from a > to a < randomly. but the concept is pretty cool.
Refer to posts made earlier. I’ll repeat some of the meat.
Whether i is often used as a variable or the constant (sqrt(-1)) is determined by context. In this context, we see an inequality. Since are meaningless for sqrt(-1), we can infer that i is a variable.
The greater than sign does not change randomly to a less than sign.
Refer to this step: -7i/-7 > -21u/-7. We can rewrite this as two steps:
-7i/7 > -21u/7 => -i > -3u. Then, we add 3u to both sides and add i to both sides: 3u > i. Finally, we generally put the variable we were focusing on on the left-hand side: i < 3u.
lol, EdBorlang missed the best part.
“i is a hard variable to use (its not an integer people) because it already has a purpose in math.”
This sentence is fail on so many levels.
1) WTF is a “hard variable”?
2) We weren’t restricting to integers, real numbers are generally assumed in this context.
3) Doesn’t everything used in mathematics have a purpose in mathematics?
The second best part:
“[i] states the impossibility of a number. ”
This is simply false. The making the square root of -1 a constant allows such equations as x^2+1 = 0 to be solved. Thus, in reality, i boldly states that the square root of -1 exists and all results involving i are therefore in existence.
Mmmm… You’re directing this to the wrong person.
EdBorlang only answered the previous post, which is the one that you’re referring to. That post was made by devan.
Technically it should be “Simplify in terms of i” rather than “Solve for i” as you cannot evaluate i without more information…
Whatever, it’s still sweet. I agree, though. It’s still one of the sweetest thing I’ve ever seen.
That’s something I would expect to see on XKCD.
I use i to represent electrical current every day and j for imaginary numbers. But i don’t really care about the mathematical validity of this statement and those that do are missing the point. Great post, the romantic in me loves the idea of using an imaginary number in a statement about love.
“But i don’t really care . . .”
Wouldn’t have thought a number cares about anything.
This is odd.. Reading through the comments, It is apparently a high school problem, but I can solve this and I’m in 7th grade. quite easy actually.
Someone that understands! I am in 7th too, we’ve already passed it!
Yea, it’s often taught in middle school or even before.
im in 8th, learned the rest in Pre-Algebra in 6th, and learned the inequality, distributive, and flipping the sign stuff in Algebra 1 in 7th. so graduated high school? try graduated middle school!
LOL im taking algebra [7th grade]^^ we just learned this.
Nice one!!!
This one is original!!!!1!!2
im putting this on stumbleupon,
partly cause of the pic and partly cause of the comments
Nerd Love Poem:
I melt at your gaze
You make my knees weak
From your warm smile
To each rosy cheek
Just a glimpse of you
Will make my heart fly
Your perfection is infinite
More infinite than Pi.
really cute, even if pi is an irrational number- infinite
decimal(has an infinite number of decimals) and can be approximated by 3.14. so i<3u <pi
This is funny. I think it’s really cute
and everyone is getting in an argument over the logics. Why can’t we just appreciate it, eh?
I totally agree with you. People should just stop overcomplicating it and enjoy it, cause it’s really cute and romantic
This would be great but there is a mistake in the 3rd row.
7i isn’t 7/7i
In the third line, it is showing that you divide both sides (including -7i) by -7, and on the left that reduces to i.
Bon! Vive le Nerde !
De-constwuction and the witless cwiticism is pour le, ‘ow you say, ‘shoe salesman?’ Oui ?
oh.. at first I thought it meant “I want to thrust my throbbing erection repeatedly up and down between your breasts. However, one lives and learns. Thank you all so much.
why the hell are you people arguing about this picture?.. you like it or you dont. move on with your life.
Math fail, you cant have inequalities with imaginary numbers, nice try though
What?
Let’s just throw in a basic example: i^2 < 0.
BURN mr.fail. just burn. never said it was imaginary,just said i, can use any variable.
(a + b) / a != b
(a + b) / a = b/a
the first equation you gave doesn’t seem to work, nor is it relevant to any of this
ROFL!
You crack me up, seriously.
Your first statement is correct, but completely unrelated to anything going on.
Your second statement is blatantly incorrect;
(a+b)/a=1+(b/a) is what you were going for I think.
This too is completely unrelated to anything being discussed.
You are aware that read out loud it says
I is less than three of u
Or if you solve for u, u is greater than a third of me. Or in fact that you are only slightly better than a third of myself (in ‘english’)
It’s actually an insult really
“Or in fact that you are only slightly better than a third of myself (in ‘english’)”
There’s no implication of /slightly/ better at all. It would merely state “You are greater than a third of myself.” manipulated in that way. This isn’t really an insult as it is almost definitely true… While it may not sound overly flattering (as it isn’t, explicitly speaking,) it is certainly not an insult. The implication could, indeed, be that you are maybe only equal to half of myself, or it could perhaps be that you are equal to myself times a billion. It’s all left up to the parameters at hand; you can’t simply assume that it is only “slightly greater.”
whatever it is – cool/sweet/otherwise – we are proud to announce you, ladies and gentlemen, that the maths is correct. and that is final.
lol i found this on a friends status. i solved it and imed the answer before i realized what it said and she sed thank you and then i noticed
actually when you divide by a negative the sign switches :p so “>” to “<" is correct.
Stop making such a fuss about the maths (which are, btw, correct, as i in the context is being used as a variable) and enjoy the post, which is the truly important thing. It’s really sweet, and romantic if written for one. I loved it
Ethan, your retarded, when dividing a fraction by a negative number the signs switch. (assuming its a less than/greater than equation)
Thanks, General Obvious (he got promoted today)
you all are making this SIMPLE math inequality harder than it has to be!. im an eighth grader and i understood every step they took in solving it. imagine you’re an eighth grade nerd and you like an eighth grade girl. of course you’re gonna make it say i love you!. so stop trying to make it harder than it has to be people, damn!.
Penis hair.
you cant have imaginary numbers in inequalities
you are all wrong i and u are not like terms so you cant divide them
wow you people are awful at math who say this is wrong. just stop making fools of yourselves haha idiotsss they may not be like terms but you can still divide the -7 into the 21 genius
The math is correct! Plus, it’s adorable. SO, stop arguing about it!
adn also I is an imaginary number!!! SO SHUT UP
))))
and*
JESUS CHRIST! What a bunch of math-illiterate inbred idiots!
If you can’t figure out how an inequality works please go play in traffic.
you can’t have inequalities for i
OMG U GUYS NEED TO SHUT THE F**K UP!!!!! YOU NO NOTHINGGG AND THIS IS FRKN ADORABLE!!!!! AND MY BOYFRIENDS THINKS ITS CUTE TOO!!!!:] (i love him so much:])
Anyone who says this is wrong is retarded. It’s all right. i is only a variable, no one ever said it had to be imaginary. Pick up a middle school textbook people. This stuff isnt hard. Basic algebra that I learned in 8th grade is what this is.
Forget about the math………. concentrate on your English and spelling for G-d’s sake !!!!!
It’s fine, but I can understand how people got confused. It isn’t written very clearly. Here’s the process explained.
Whoever made this should have started backwards, to avoid confusion
3(3x-7u)<9x-7i
9x-21u<9x-7i
Subtract 9x from both sides
-21u<-7i
divide both sides with 7
-3u<-i
add 3u+i to both sides (it's what actually happens)
i<3u
Done, it's what was done in the picture in plain math english
It's pretty cute
How is “divide both sides with 7″ (which is nonsense – you divide BY 7, not “with” 7) followed by “add 3u+i to both sides” in any way clearer than just dividing both sides by -7? You’re replacing one simple step with two steps for no reason at all.
yes, there was a reason… people got confused by the flip of inequality when dividing both sides by negative #….
these extra steps let it clearly…. i hope.
OK, the last expression is correct you dam retards!!!
Go relearn your effing algebra otherwise shut the hell up!!
your daddy at math..
¡Qué pendejada!
you’re all a bunch of freakin idiots. YOU CANT HAVE INEQUALITIES WITH IMAGINARY NUMBERS
Awesome equation, horrible replies, all i saw was arguing about weather the math was correct or not
d maths is absolutely ri8 n dis is lovingly fantastic !!!!
is this mathematically sound? please tell me,
solving it myself would hardly prove anything -.= *art student
My big brother just transfered into the Business major at the Udub and his first day is coming up!! i want to leave this on the coffee machine on his first day :3 as encouragement and that me and my elder brother are so so proud of him!!!
! (he’s coming in as a Junior, so he doesn’t know anyone) please reply, he’ll laugh at me if it’s wrong haha
I find it funny that one person explains how it is correct, yet others insist on saying it as well. Losers haha
Seriously guys?!? First, the math is correct, and second, even if it isn’t, it’s still pretty sweet! Just drop it! I’m getting pretty tired of random people claiming to be “teachers” and “mathematicians” debating their unsubstantiated claims. This is the INTERNET! NOBODY CARES!
WOW You guys really are NERDS. It’s supposed to be cute and funny. Not something to fight about. ::Rolls Eyes::
erm….this is great but how do I write it for someone else to figure out…how much do I write, no idea about the math, help please thank you
The formula is WRONG. I know you swap the sign when you divide by a negative, but the numerators were negative too, so you would have -i if you want to get rid of the – signs. Or, you could just do -7/-7 =1 and -21/-7=3 and leave the > as it is cuz your values are positive and there is no reason to swap it.
To prove it is wrong just give it values… let’s say i=4 and u=1
if you do -7(4)/-7 > -21(u)/-7 everything is fine cuz if you solve it it gives you 4>3, but if you replace them on the last formula you get (4)<3(1) which is wrong cuz if you solve it it gives you 4 < 3 and as far I know 4 is greater than 3, so that proves the formula is absolutely wrong.
The important thing is not to remember the theory you heard at school but knowing how to apply it correctly.
you sir are a f**king idiot
WHAT IN THE WORLD? Guys, who cares, the whole point is that you are a nerd and love that person. BESIDES, you guys are so unimaginative. And, anyone who hates on me, well, you fail. Because, remember, fighting on the internet is like being Edward Cullen. No matter how right you are, you’re still a sparkling, pedophile fairy.
9x+7i < 3(3x+7u)
this is not really correct becuase you cannot meaningfully talk about inequalities of imaginary numbers. is i > or < 1, for example?
Technically he’s saying I greater than 3 of u lol
all this disscusion changed i<3u to i</3u hahahaha
wow…that’s so cute..
You idiots!! The equation is correct! You freakin’ flip the “>” to a “<" when dividing the -7! OMG!! IT DOESN'T TAKE HARD THINKING TO GET THIS RIGHT PEOPLE!!
AND the "i" is not used as a freakin' imaginary number!! It's used as a variable!! like an "x"!
-7i > -21u
i -21
2 < 3
it's right!
“i” is equal to the sqrt(-1)
Technically, “i” doesn’t exist as a number, since it represents the square root of -1.
<3
Man, people are idiots, i learned how to do this and harder problems in 6th grade.
CORRECTED VERSION
-9x – 7i > -3(3x + 7u)
————————–
-9x – 7i > -9x – 21u
+9x +9x
————————–
-7 > -21u
— —-
-7 -7
————————–
i <3 u
to all the people arguing over the math:
JUST GET A F**KING GRAPHING CALCULATOR
-genius
most trying to correct this are wrong for different reasons. the sign flips because it is to find “i” not “-i” …to get the desired outcome, we have to turn the signs. it is all mathematically correct, and anyone who says otherwise should go learn basic algebra
if you divide by -9x,suppose you divide each term in the equation. which i didn’t see that. therefore mathematically your way of saying i love you in math is wrong.
you guys wasting time just enter the equation in WolframAlpha and see the real deal and stop arguing…
Minecraft Got Me Here
I’m laughing reading the comments! I’m a freshman, and I could’ve solved this when I was 11. And I’m writing the initial equation 9x-7i < 3(3x-7u). On my friend's valentine card. He loves solving math problems, and it'll be cute when he gets to the simplified equation.
Make sure you write 9x-7i > 3(3x-7u) or it won’t work out right!
i’m 14 and am passing algebra with flying colors, so lets get to the argued point, yes the inequality is correct. why? because when dividing by a negative the inequality sign changes. if it was less than() and vice versa.