Go Back > Extra Stuff > Miscellaneous Math

Closed Thread
Thread Tools
Old 2020-06-23, 23:45   #56
Jun 2020

29 Posts

let's say: f(x1, y1) = x1 ) y1 = (x2, y2)

Remember that I'm using ")" to represent the "cut"
x1 = the thing being "cut"
y1 = the number of "cuts"
x2 = number of pieces after the "cut" or "cuts"
y2 = size of the new piece from the "cut"

It can also be written as:

a ) b = (a(b+1)),(1/b+1) = a

Last fiddled with by BillyB on 2020-06-24 at 00:38
BillyB is offline  
Old 2020-06-24, 01:05   #57
ewmayer's Avatar
Sep 2002
República de California

101101001100112 Posts

Somebody give me one good reason why this thread sould not be closed on "that's enough inanity and derisive-amusement for one thread" grounds. For everyone besides the OP, with whom it is clearly useless to attempt to reason: No one has better things to do with their time? Re-read the neverending Don Blazys thread if you like endless natterings involving no new mathematics worth spit and "[it is *so*|it is *not*] division by zero" debates.

Last fiddled with by ewmayer on 2020-06-24 at 01:06
ewmayer is offline  
Old 2020-06-24, 01:16   #58
6809 > 6502
Uncwilly's Avatar
Aug 2003
101×103 Posts

2·112·37 Posts

Originally Posted by ewmayer View Post
Somebody give me one good reason why this thread sould not be closed

Last fiddled with by Uncwilly on 2020-06-24 at 01:17 Reason: reorder
Uncwilly is online now  
Old 2020-06-24, 02:53   #59
CRGreathouse's Avatar
Aug 2006

22×33×5×11 Posts

Originally Posted by xilman View Post
Let x and y be real numbers.

BillyB(x, y) = x/y for all x, y where x and y are both non-zero.
BillyB(x,0) = 1 for all x not equal to zero.

At the moment I have no idea of the value of the only remaining case, viz BillyB(0,0).
Originally Posted by bsquared View Post
I agree with the first but my take on his "explanation" so far is that BillyB(x,0) = x. i.e., a thing of size x cut zero times remains size x. So BillyB(0,0) = 0 by that definition.
Originally Posted by BillyB View Post
Excellent interpretation!
My current (consensus) understanding is thus:
Let x and y be real numbers.

BillyB(x, y) = x/y for all x, y where y ≠ 0.
BillyB(x,0) = x.
Is this a correct understanding? I am avoiding your 'unmatched-parenthesis' notation, which creates some confusion.
CRGreathouse is offline  
Old 2020-06-24, 12:36   #60
Dr Sardonicus
Dr Sardonicus's Avatar
Feb 2017

74748 Posts

The Doctor is in!

My diagnosis: ewmayer's analysis is correct. This thread should be closed. I will do the honors.

Also, the OP's reporting of Uncwilly's post as "rude" is extremely childish, and far more rude than the post itself. If you're going to be posting er, ah, unconventional ideas to Miscellaneous Math, you had better have the hide of a rhinoceros.

Last fiddled with by Dr Sardonicus on 2020-06-24 at 12:40 Reason: xifnig posty
Dr Sardonicus is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Prime number thought experiment MooMoo2 Lounge 59 2018-01-02 18:37
Just a thought of Quark numbers. SarK0Y Miscellaneous Math 44 2011-11-07 18:01
A real GIMPS math thought davieddy Math 45 2011-06-06 01:58
I thought I found another one..... schickel Aliquot Sequences 0 2011-02-21 03:52
MPrime: K7 has 64KB of L1 cache... but I thought it had 128K! optim Hardware 2 2004-07-10 19:59

All times are UTC. The time now is 23:48.

Sat Dec 5 23:48:48 UTC 2020 up 2 days, 20 hrs, 0 users, load averages: 1.93, 1.70, 1.71

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum has received and complied with 0 (zero) government requests for information.

Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation.
A copy of the license is included in the FAQ.