-
-
Copy & paste this:
« Previous How Awkward Moments Work | A Friday Night Spent Alone Next »
» 29 TPS Reports
Leave a Reply
-
Latest Comments
3311300 on High on Life? No, High on… 3311300 on High on Life? No, High on… Kendra on What People Say When They Lear… Xydrealb on Replotted- Pol·i·ti·cian: A Pe… Dennish777 on So Many Countless Hours Spent … Breeze on Art of Trolling: Nothing, Noth… Fred on Han Shot First, Damn It! Mr Charizard on Faith Means Never Having to Ad… Sanee on Spank the Monkey mitchells2003 on Congressional Bling ... on So Many Countless Hours Spent … ... on Han Shot First, Damn It! willohfish on Art of Trolling: Nothing, Noth… biocake on If Only They Made Little Pouch… GermanGirl on So Many Countless Hours Spent … 
Cheezburger Company Blog
D8 I want that… BUT I have no moneys.. T-T
I’m a nerd. The shirt has a mistake. Next to last step should show the “<" sign. Did I say I was a nerd?
You’re a nerd and wrong then.
Dude is correct. The third step is attempting to combine the result of the previous step with the action of dividing both sides by -7, but the inequality as depicted in step 3 is incorrect. It should be broken up into two steps:
-7i > -21 u
——————–
-7i/-7 < -21u/-7
This is simple: When solving inequalities, one does not turn the inequality sign (,≤,≥) when subtracting or adding. One does, however, change the sign when dividing or multiplying by a negative number. I believe the shirt to be correct.
I agree. Although it is supposed to be flipped that wasn’t done until after the -7 was divided. In that step the -7 is still being divided. If you look at the previous steps the appropriate changes aren’t made until after the action is done. So the third step is right.
He is right though, the / (-7) step already turns the sign
It’s just kinda wrong, but more importantly written poorly. Whoever did this is dividing in the same manner that they subtracted in the line previous, by adding the step and the long equal sign. Unfortunately writing it out that way makes it look wrong.
but the answer is i >3 u
They printed it wrong then? Cuz I’m a nerd too, and when I solved the equation, it came out to i > 3 u , just like you said.
When the two sides were divided by -7, the sign should be flipped; making the second to last stage actually “-7i/-7 < -21u/-7".
For instance, take: 3 -9
NB: One also assumes ‘i’ to be a variable, not (-1)^0.5 ~ as you can’t define inequalities with imaginary numbers.
Oops, it should have read:
For instance, take: 3 -9
Ah, it would seem it deletes the text between [less than] and [greater than], as per html. It should have read:
For instance, take: 3 [is less than] 9
Divide both sides by (-1), and you get: -3 [is greater than] -9
You’re all losers. Actually, there’s no order relation like “<" defined for complex numbers! It's defined for real numbers only. Anyone trying to impress nerds with this will fail.
Nowhere is said that i is the complex number such as i²=-1. It can be just a simple real variable.
It’s just a variable, in this case. Not the square root of negative one.
I got i > -7 u, but i could be wrong
how would you get -7 when you divide -21 by -7?
Should be 3. -7 times 3 is -21.
A negative times a positive is a negative.
A negative times a negative is positive.
nerd overload!!!
I think this is an ordinary person JOKE, the punch line being the important thing, not the eqation dudes, sheesh lighten up a little. We all wouldn’t mind a little more in the IQ department, but some of us, just have to make t-shirts.
Wooooow… these comments? Full of win.
Actually if you look at what they do the line before it makes a bit more sense.
They wrote -9x underneath the inequality, to indicate they would subtract 9x from both sides.
Then they wrote the inequality out again, and then wrote /-7 underneath to indicate they would divide by -7. They then wrote out the solution, flipping the inequality sign as you do when you divide by a negative number.
So it’s sort of correct, but just very badly formatted and laid out to the point where it can be mistaken to be something else!
They they write out the in
Nice to see ICHC is cashing in on other peoples ideas.
the answer is correct because you are working with negative numbers, so the > has to flip over to <
I’m surprised nobody has pointed out yet that sigma is an S, not an E.
I think the point is just that it looks like an E. They’re not saying it actually is one.
Everyone, the equation is written correctly. Look:
By subtracting 9x from the second equation we get: -7i>-21u
Now, by dividing this by -7 we get: i to < or vice-versa)
thumbs up if the comments are funnier than the shirt