IT'S BECAUSE I FUCKING SAID SO.
Class dismissed.
Tuesday, February 8, 2011
Sunday, December 26, 2010
Brain Food IV AND V
Also known in some cultures as Food for Thought! Bonus snack day.
People say that the universe is curved. This is often called one of the most beautiful true statements ever thought up. If it is true, then that means that both space and time are curved. One of the most interesting things things about a curve is the fact that, in order to be a curve, a curve must have no lines in it. Since a line is made of infinite points between two specific points, and as a curve has no lines, it cannot have infinite points between those two points. However, as the universe curves back into itself, if you were to go in one direction for a extended period of time, that is to say, if you went in a straight line, you would eventually return to that point. In other words, while the universe isn't infinite, the space inside the universe is.
What explanation can there be? Since there cannot be a line in the curve of the universe, and yet if you go in a line in one direction, you will return to your original location, one can only assume that there is only one point to begin with. In other words, there is no space - just a single dot on a piece of graphing paper.
And, as todays special bonus, we'll take it a bit further. We have been talking exclusively of space. The universe, however, is made of spacetime, so what we stated before about space must also be true about time. In other words, there is only one point of time. Therefore, it can't have been almost nine months since my last post, because there is only the now, and never any other time!
People say that the universe is curved. This is often called one of the most beautiful true statements ever thought up. If it is true, then that means that both space and time are curved. One of the most interesting things things about a curve is the fact that, in order to be a curve, a curve must have no lines in it. Since a line is made of infinite points between two specific points, and as a curve has no lines, it cannot have infinite points between those two points. However, as the universe curves back into itself, if you were to go in one direction for a extended period of time, that is to say, if you went in a straight line, you would eventually return to that point. In other words, while the universe isn't infinite, the space inside the universe is.
What explanation can there be? Since there cannot be a line in the curve of the universe, and yet if you go in a line in one direction, you will return to your original location, one can only assume that there is only one point to begin with. In other words, there is no space - just a single dot on a piece of graphing paper.
And, as todays special bonus, we'll take it a bit further. We have been talking exclusively of space. The universe, however, is made of spacetime, so what we stated before about space must also be true about time. In other words, there is only one point of time. Therefore, it can't have been almost nine months since my last post, because there is only the now, and never any other time!
Sunday, March 28, 2010
"Why not?" III
Simple answers to tricky questions, part three.
Q: Will they find the Higgs Boson?
A: Unfortunately not. Too many god damn cosmic sparrows flying around.
Q: If there was a train going the speed of light, and on that train was a smaller train, and that train went forwards at any speed, what would happen?
A: Suddenly an alpaca out of freaking nowhere.
Q: Where did viruses come from?
A: Spain.
Q: When will first contact be made?
A: According to my calculations, assuming current rate of ocean pollution and youtube account activation, presuming that Hubbles constant is below 124, and forgetting the fourth decimal place in the equation giving the value of Saturn's mass, right about the 16th of January, 2014. Be there.
Q: Who watches the watchman?
A: A guy in West Virginia called Scott Martez.
Q: Has anyone really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like?
A: Not since November, but occasional when use are on be some orangutans.
Q: Where have you been all this time? It's been two months since your last post!
A: Yes, yes, I know my millions of readers have been put out by my lack of activity. Thanks y'all for all those hundreds of concerned comments, but I've been busy. And I'm back now, baby!
Q: Will they find the Higgs Boson?
A: Unfortunately not. Too many god damn cosmic sparrows flying around.
Q: If there was a train going the speed of light, and on that train was a smaller train, and that train went forwards at any speed, what would happen?
A: Suddenly an alpaca out of freaking nowhere.
Q: Where did viruses come from?
A: Spain.
Q: When will first contact be made?
A: According to my calculations, assuming current rate of ocean pollution and youtube account activation, presuming that Hubbles constant is below 124, and forgetting the fourth decimal place in the equation giving the value of Saturn's mass, right about the 16th of January, 2014. Be there.
Q: Who watches the watchman?
A: A guy in West Virginia called Scott Martez.
Q: Has anyone really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like?
A: Not since November, but occasional when use are on be some orangutans.
Q: Where have you been all this time? It's been two months since your last post!
A: Yes, yes, I know my millions of readers have been put out by my lack of activity. Thanks y'all for all those hundreds of concerned comments, but I've been busy. And I'm back now, baby!
Thursday, December 3, 2009
Improbable probabilities of improbabile probabilities.
The universe is ruled by probability. Which makes it quite probable that it is also ruled, or should I say is at the same time ruled - no, it isamele time ruled by improbability. Improbability, being the anti-form of probability, is wound up inseparably with regular old probability, and as such rules our universe in as many ways, if not more so, then predictability.
Improbability is not something to laugh at, no matter what some books have encouraged us to believe. Indeed, it is a ongoing research topic for scientists, and as such, I myself have devoted some little thought to the matter.
Since the universe is ruled by probability, it is therefore ruled by improbability from the anti-energies that each probability factor implies - that is, for every probability of an out come, one can therefore assume that everything else is more or less improbable from the probable outcome, and as a result of having a probable result, we can therefore conclude that it is probable (or improbable) that there are more improbable results that probable ones. As a direct result, with more improbability that probability, it is therefore more probable that improbability will abound then probability. This obviously loops back on itself, and it would seem this whole problem is more or less impossible, or, to be more precise, very very improbable, and therefore, since improbability = negative probability, -very -very probable, which makes absolutely no sense, and who thought all this up anyways.
Since no one in their right mind can possibly understand any of this shit, we can only come to three conclusions.
One: The universe, since no one in their right mind could understand this, and the universe clearly does in order to function, must be out of its own mind. Which would explain quite a bit.
Two: One should always prepare for that which one is not prepared for, so that preparing for what is not prepared for makes what he is prepared for and now not prepared for probable of occurring in the first place.
And, as a direct conclusion to the conclusions of the conclusion, we have a final, fundamental fact of the universe:
The universe is fucking retarded.
Have a nice day.
Improbability is not something to laugh at, no matter what some books have encouraged us to believe. Indeed, it is a ongoing research topic for scientists, and as such, I myself have devoted some little thought to the matter.
Since the universe is ruled by probability, it is therefore ruled by improbability from the anti-energies that each probability factor implies - that is, for every probability of an out come, one can therefore assume that everything else is more or less improbable from the probable outcome, and as a result of having a probable result, we can therefore conclude that it is probable (or improbable) that there are more improbable results that probable ones. As a direct result, with more improbability that probability, it is therefore more probable that improbability will abound then probability. This obviously loops back on itself, and it would seem this whole problem is more or less impossible, or, to be more precise, very very improbable, and therefore, since improbability = negative probability, -very -very probable, which makes absolutely no sense, and who thought all this up anyways.
Since no one in their right mind can possibly understand any of this shit, we can only come to three conclusions.
One: The universe, since no one in their right mind could understand this, and the universe clearly does in order to function, must be out of its own mind. Which would explain quite a bit.
Two: One should always prepare for that which one is not prepared for, so that preparing for what is not prepared for makes what he is prepared for and now not prepared for probable of occurring in the first place.
And, as a direct conclusion to the conclusions of the conclusion, we have a final, fundamental fact of the universe:
The universe is fucking retarded.
Have a nice day.
Brain Food III
Also known in some cultures as Food for Thought!
Although, I find it highly improbable that thought actually needs food. The brain is what produces thought, and it certainly needs food of a sort, or at least energy. But do thoughts actually need food? Ahh, the endless ponderings brought on by pondering the said ponderings...
Although, I find it highly improbable that thought actually needs food. The brain is what produces thought, and it certainly needs food of a sort, or at least energy. But do thoughts actually need food? Ahh, the endless ponderings brought on by pondering the said ponderings...
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
Other, notable work: Time-Traveling birds out to get us.
The following is from Yahoo news. http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20091111/wl_time/08599193737000
"Sometime on Nov. 3, the supercooled magnets in sector 81 of the Large Hadron Collider (LHC), outside Geneva, began to dangerously overheat. Scientists rushed to diagnose the problem, since the particle accelerator has to maintain a temperature colder than deep space in order to work. The culprit? "A bit of baguette," says Mike Lamont of the control center of CERN, the European Organization for Nuclear Research, which built and maintains the LHC. Apparently, a passing bird may have dropped the chunk of bread on an electrical substation above the accelerator, causing a power cut. The baguette was removed, power to the cryogenic system was restored and within a few days the magnets returned to their supercool temperatures.
While most scientists would write off the event as a freak accident, two esteemed physicists have formulated a theory that suggests an alternative explanation: perhaps a time-traveling bird was sent from the future to sabotage the experiment. Bech Nielsen of the Niels Bohr Institute in Copenhagen and Masao Ninomiya of the Yukawa Institute for Theoretical Physics in Kyoto, Japan, have published several papers over the past year arguing that the CERN experiment may be the latest in a series of physics research projects whose purposes are so unacceptable to the universe that they are doomed to fail, subverted by the future.
The LHC, a 17-mile underground ring designed to smash atoms together at high energies, was created in part to find proof of a hypothetical subatomic particle called the Higgs boson. According to current theory, the Higgs is responsible for imparting mass to all things in the universe. But ever since the British physicist Peter Higgs first postulated the existence of the particle in 1964, attempts to capture the particle have failed, and often for unexpected, seemingly inexplicable reasons.
In 1993, the multibillion-dollar United States Superconducting Supercollider, which was designed to search for the Higgs, was abruptly canceled by Congress. In 2000, scientists at a previous CERN accelerator, LEP, said they were on the verge of discovering the particle when, again, funding dried up. And now there's the LHC. Originally scheduled to start operating in 2006, it has been hit with a series of delays and setbacks, including a sudden explosion between two magnets nine days after the accelerator was first turned on, the arrest of one of its contributing physicists on suspicion of terrorist activity and, most recently, the aerial bread bombardment from a bird. (A CERN spokesman said power cuts such as the one caused by the errant baguette are common for a device that requires as much electricity as the nearby city of Geneva, and that physicists are confident they will begin circulating atoms by the end of the year).
In a series of audacious papers, Nielsen and Ninomiya have suggested that setbacks to the LHC occur because of "reverse chronological causation," which is to say, sabotage from the future. The papers suggest that the Higgs boson may be "abhorrent to nature" and the LHC's creation of the Higgs sometime in the future sends ripples backward through time to scupper its own creation. Each time scientists are on the verge of capturing the Higgs, the theory holds, the future intercedes. The theory as to why the universe rejects the creation of Higgs bosons is based on complex mathematics, but, Nielsen tells TIME, "you could explain it [simply] by saying that God, in inverted commas, or nature, hates the Higgs and tries to avoid them."
Many physicists say that Nielsen and Ninomiya's theory, while intellectually interesting, cannot be accurate because the event that the LHC is trying to recreate already happens in nature. Particle collisions of an energy equivalent to those planned in the LHC occur when high-energy cosmic rays collide with the earth's atmosphere. What's more, some scientists believe that the Tevatron accelerator at Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory (or Fermilab) near Chicago has already created Higgs bosons without incident; the Fermilab scientists are now refining data from their collisions to prove the Higgs' existence.
Nielsen counters that nature might allow a small number of Higgs to be produced by the Tevatron, but would prevent the production of the large number of particles the LHC is anticipated to produce. He also acknowledges that Higgs particles are probably produced in cosmic collisions, but says it's impossible to know whether nature has stopped a great deal of these collisions from happening. "It's possible that God avoids Higgs [particles] only when there are very many of them, but if there are a few, maybe He let's them go," he says.
Nielsen and Ninomiya's theory represents one side of an intellectual divide between particle physicists today. Contemporary physicists tend to fall into one of two camps: the theorists, who posit ideas about the origins and workings of the universe; and experimentalists, who design telescopes and particle accelerators to test these theories, or provide new data from which novel theories can emerge. Most experimentalists believe that the theorists, due to a lack of new data in recent years, have reached a roadblock - the Standard Model, which is the closest thing the theorists have to an evidence-backed "theory of everything," provides only an incomplete explanation of the universe. Until theorists get further data and evidence to move forward, the experimentalists believe, they end up simply making wild guesses - like those concerning time-traveling saboteurs - about how the universe works. "Nielsen and Ninomiya's theories are clearly crazy theories," says Dmitri Denisov, a physicist and Higgs-hunter at the DZero experiment at Fermilab. "In recent years theorists have been starving for experimental input and as a result, theories of second type are propagating widely. The majority of them have nothing to do with world we live in."
Nielsen concedes, "We have very little data, so theorists are going their own ways and making a lot of theories that may not be very plausible. We need guidance from experimentalists to make the theories more healthy."
"But," he adds, "in terms of our theory, we are submitting to a form of experiment. We are saying the LHC won't be allowed to produce a large number of Higgs. If it does, it would be very damaging to our theory."
Particle physics has a long history of zany theories that turned out to be true. Niels Bohr, the doyen of modern physicists, often told a story about a horseshoe he kept over his country home in Tisvilde, Denmark. When asked whether he really thought it would bring good luck, he replied, "Of course not, but I'm told it works even if you don't believe in it." In other words: if preposterous theories are mathematically sound and can be confirmed by observation, they are true, even if seemingly impossible to believe. To scientists in the early 20th century, for example, quantum mechanics may have seemed outrageous. "The concept that you could have a wave-particle duality - that an object could take on either wave-like properties or point-like properties, depending on how you observe it - takes a huge leap of imagination," says Roberto Roser, a scientist at Fermilab. "Sometimes outlandish papers turn out to be the laws of physics."
So what would Peter Higgs himself make of the intellectual controversy surrounding his eponymous particle? Speaking on behalf of his friend, Professor Richard Kenway, who holds Higgs' former position at the University of Edinburgh, says that the 78-year-old emeritus professor remains quietly confident that the LHC will discover the Higgs boson when it is eventually running at full strength. For his part, Kenway says the LHC's delays are to be expected given the size and intricacy of the $9 billion experiment. And he says if he ever needs further proof that the Higgs boson is not abhorrent to nature, he need only spend time with his friend and mentor. "If nature truly did not want us to discover the Higgs, a cosmic ray would have zapped the embryo that became Peter, preventing its development into a physicist," he says."
"Sometime on Nov. 3, the supercooled magnets in sector 81 of the Large Hadron Collider (LHC), outside Geneva, began to dangerously overheat. Scientists rushed to diagnose the problem, since the particle accelerator has to maintain a temperature colder than deep space in order to work. The culprit? "A bit of baguette," says Mike Lamont of the control center of CERN, the European Organization for Nuclear Research, which built and maintains the LHC. Apparently, a passing bird may have dropped the chunk of bread on an electrical substation above the accelerator, causing a power cut. The baguette was removed, power to the cryogenic system was restored and within a few days the magnets returned to their supercool temperatures.
While most scientists would write off the event as a freak accident, two esteemed physicists have formulated a theory that suggests an alternative explanation: perhaps a time-traveling bird was sent from the future to sabotage the experiment. Bech Nielsen of the Niels Bohr Institute in Copenhagen and Masao Ninomiya of the Yukawa Institute for Theoretical Physics in Kyoto, Japan, have published several papers over the past year arguing that the CERN experiment may be the latest in a series of physics research projects whose purposes are so unacceptable to the universe that they are doomed to fail, subverted by the future.
The LHC, a 17-mile underground ring designed to smash atoms together at high energies, was created in part to find proof of a hypothetical subatomic particle called the Higgs boson. According to current theory, the Higgs is responsible for imparting mass to all things in the universe. But ever since the British physicist Peter Higgs first postulated the existence of the particle in 1964, attempts to capture the particle have failed, and often for unexpected, seemingly inexplicable reasons.
In 1993, the multibillion-dollar United States Superconducting Supercollider, which was designed to search for the Higgs, was abruptly canceled by Congress. In 2000, scientists at a previous CERN accelerator, LEP, said they were on the verge of discovering the particle when, again, funding dried up. And now there's the LHC. Originally scheduled to start operating in 2006, it has been hit with a series of delays and setbacks, including a sudden explosion between two magnets nine days after the accelerator was first turned on, the arrest of one of its contributing physicists on suspicion of terrorist activity and, most recently, the aerial bread bombardment from a bird. (A CERN spokesman said power cuts such as the one caused by the errant baguette are common for a device that requires as much electricity as the nearby city of Geneva, and that physicists are confident they will begin circulating atoms by the end of the year).
In a series of audacious papers, Nielsen and Ninomiya have suggested that setbacks to the LHC occur because of "reverse chronological causation," which is to say, sabotage from the future. The papers suggest that the Higgs boson may be "abhorrent to nature" and the LHC's creation of the Higgs sometime in the future sends ripples backward through time to scupper its own creation. Each time scientists are on the verge of capturing the Higgs, the theory holds, the future intercedes. The theory as to why the universe rejects the creation of Higgs bosons is based on complex mathematics, but, Nielsen tells TIME, "you could explain it [simply] by saying that God, in inverted commas, or nature, hates the Higgs and tries to avoid them."
Many physicists say that Nielsen and Ninomiya's theory, while intellectually interesting, cannot be accurate because the event that the LHC is trying to recreate already happens in nature. Particle collisions of an energy equivalent to those planned in the LHC occur when high-energy cosmic rays collide with the earth's atmosphere. What's more, some scientists believe that the Tevatron accelerator at Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory (or Fermilab) near Chicago has already created Higgs bosons without incident; the Fermilab scientists are now refining data from their collisions to prove the Higgs' existence.
Nielsen counters that nature might allow a small number of Higgs to be produced by the Tevatron, but would prevent the production of the large number of particles the LHC is anticipated to produce. He also acknowledges that Higgs particles are probably produced in cosmic collisions, but says it's impossible to know whether nature has stopped a great deal of these collisions from happening. "It's possible that God avoids Higgs [particles] only when there are very many of them, but if there are a few, maybe He let's them go," he says.
Nielsen and Ninomiya's theory represents one side of an intellectual divide between particle physicists today. Contemporary physicists tend to fall into one of two camps: the theorists, who posit ideas about the origins and workings of the universe; and experimentalists, who design telescopes and particle accelerators to test these theories, or provide new data from which novel theories can emerge. Most experimentalists believe that the theorists, due to a lack of new data in recent years, have reached a roadblock - the Standard Model, which is the closest thing the theorists have to an evidence-backed "theory of everything," provides only an incomplete explanation of the universe. Until theorists get further data and evidence to move forward, the experimentalists believe, they end up simply making wild guesses - like those concerning time-traveling saboteurs - about how the universe works. "Nielsen and Ninomiya's theories are clearly crazy theories," says Dmitri Denisov, a physicist and Higgs-hunter at the DZero experiment at Fermilab. "In recent years theorists have been starving for experimental input and as a result, theories of second type are propagating widely. The majority of them have nothing to do with world we live in."
Nielsen concedes, "We have very little data, so theorists are going their own ways and making a lot of theories that may not be very plausible. We need guidance from experimentalists to make the theories more healthy."
"But," he adds, "in terms of our theory, we are submitting to a form of experiment. We are saying the LHC won't be allowed to produce a large number of Higgs. If it does, it would be very damaging to our theory."
Particle physics has a long history of zany theories that turned out to be true. Niels Bohr, the doyen of modern physicists, often told a story about a horseshoe he kept over his country home in Tisvilde, Denmark. When asked whether he really thought it would bring good luck, he replied, "Of course not, but I'm told it works even if you don't believe in it." In other words: if preposterous theories are mathematically sound and can be confirmed by observation, they are true, even if seemingly impossible to believe. To scientists in the early 20th century, for example, quantum mechanics may have seemed outrageous. "The concept that you could have a wave-particle duality - that an object could take on either wave-like properties or point-like properties, depending on how you observe it - takes a huge leap of imagination," says Roberto Roser, a scientist at Fermilab. "Sometimes outlandish papers turn out to be the laws of physics."
So what would Peter Higgs himself make of the intellectual controversy surrounding his eponymous particle? Speaking on behalf of his friend, Professor Richard Kenway, who holds Higgs' former position at the University of Edinburgh, says that the 78-year-old emeritus professor remains quietly confident that the LHC will discover the Higgs boson when it is eventually running at full strength. For his part, Kenway says the LHC's delays are to be expected given the size and intricacy of the $9 billion experiment. And he says if he ever needs further proof that the Higgs boson is not abhorrent to nature, he need only spend time with his friend and mentor. "If nature truly did not want us to discover the Higgs, a cosmic ray would have zapped the embryo that became Peter, preventing its development into a physicist," he says."
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
Cake vs. Pie
Cake =/= pie. We all know one is greater then the other, but for years, it has been debated which. The time has come to end this war.
First up, we have to define and simplify each of the competitors. Lets start with cake.
The basic base of a cake, the part that is the generalized "cake" of cake, is made of sugar, butter and eggs. Simple. The rest of the recipe is all optional, and changes from cake to cake. So, here we go. To simplify cake to a workable form:
(Cake) = (Egg) + (Sugar) + (Butter)
Egg = Unfertilized chicken, surrounded by a hard shell.
This can be simplified as "Bastard Chicken that never was"
Sugar = Edible crystaline structures, usually in the form of a fine powder.
This can be simplified as "Yummy rocks"
Butter = Liquid found in a Bovine species, created to sustain a youngster, that is agitated greatly until it becomes this semi-solid.
This can be simplified as "Jiggled cow baby-food"
So, here is what we know so far:
Cake = (Bastard Chicken child that never was) + (Yummy rocks) + (Jiggled Cow baby-food)
When all of these ingredients are added together, you get:
A slightly sticky goo, that, when tossed into a medium of oxidized materials that are limiting light, energy and gases in the right amount, will magically grow bigger and become a fully fledged solid.
This can be simplified as "Goo that gets bigger".
So, (Goo that gets bigger) = Cake.
Therefore,
Goo that gets bigger =/= Pie.
WONDERFUL. Onward to the definition of Pie.
Pie and pi sound the same, therefore they must be equal.
Pi, as we all know, is equal to 3.141592. This is symbolized as a little outhouse or something.
Therefore, Pie = a little outhouse. As such, it follows
A goo that gets bigger =/= a little outhouse.
Now it's time for a little algebraical stuff. Everyone who has flipped through a algebra book knows it's all about counting letters and shit. So lets count up the little letters.
2a, 4g, 2o, 3t, h, 2e, s, b, i, r =/= a, 2l, 2i, 3t, 2e, 2o, 2u, h, s.
Now then, as we can see, we can immediately rule out a few numbers for having to do with the inequality. There are two e's on both sides, so we rule them out. 2 o's, one h and one s as well. Finally, 3 t's from both sides. So, we are left with
2a, 4g, b, i, r =/= a, 2l, 2i, 2u.
Now we just have to determine how much each each letter is worth, add up both sides, and we will have the final answer. How much is a letter worth? That's easy!
It's so obvious, I don't know why mathematicians are always so confused over it. Obviously, each letter is equal to how many letters it is from the beginning! A = 1, B = 2, etc! It's so obvious! How has no one thought of this?!
As such, we come up with the following:
1 + 1 + 7 + 7 + 7 + 7 + 2 + 9 + 18 =/= 1 + 12 + 12 + 9 + 9 + 21 + 21
This equals 59 =/= 85
This is quickly and easily simplified into 59 < 85
And so, after long amounts of research and flawless, highly skilled math, none of which could possibly be wrong, I give you our conclusion.
A goo that gets bigger = 59.
A little outhouse = 85
Therefore
Cake = 59
Pie = 85
And finally, therefore, the ultimate conclusion:
Cake < Pie
First up, we have to define and simplify each of the competitors. Lets start with cake.
The basic base of a cake, the part that is the generalized "cake" of cake, is made of sugar, butter and eggs. Simple. The rest of the recipe is all optional, and changes from cake to cake. So, here we go. To simplify cake to a workable form:
(Cake) = (Egg) + (Sugar) + (Butter)
Egg = Unfertilized chicken, surrounded by a hard shell.
This can be simplified as "Bastard Chicken that never was"
Sugar = Edible crystaline structures, usually in the form of a fine powder.
This can be simplified as "Yummy rocks"
Butter = Liquid found in a Bovine species, created to sustain a youngster, that is agitated greatly until it becomes this semi-solid.
This can be simplified as "Jiggled cow baby-food"
So, here is what we know so far:
Cake = (Bastard Chicken child that never was) + (Yummy rocks) + (Jiggled Cow baby-food)
When all of these ingredients are added together, you get:
A slightly sticky goo, that, when tossed into a medium of oxidized materials that are limiting light, energy and gases in the right amount, will magically grow bigger and become a fully fledged solid.
This can be simplified as "Goo that gets bigger".
So, (Goo that gets bigger) = Cake.
Therefore,
Goo that gets bigger =/= Pie.
WONDERFUL. Onward to the definition of Pie.
Pie and pi sound the same, therefore they must be equal.
Pi, as we all know, is equal to 3.141592. This is symbolized as a little outhouse or something.
Therefore, Pie = a little outhouse. As such, it follows
A goo that gets bigger =/= a little outhouse.
Now it's time for a little algebraical stuff. Everyone who has flipped through a algebra book knows it's all about counting letters and shit. So lets count up the little letters.
2a, 4g, 2o, 3t, h, 2e, s, b, i, r =/= a, 2l, 2i, 3t, 2e, 2o, 2u, h, s.
Now then, as we can see, we can immediately rule out a few numbers for having to do with the inequality. There are two e's on both sides, so we rule them out. 2 o's, one h and one s as well. Finally, 3 t's from both sides. So, we are left with
2a, 4g, b, i, r =/= a, 2l, 2i, 2u.
Now we just have to determine how much each each letter is worth, add up both sides, and we will have the final answer. How much is a letter worth? That's easy!
It's so obvious, I don't know why mathematicians are always so confused over it. Obviously, each letter is equal to how many letters it is from the beginning! A = 1, B = 2, etc! It's so obvious! How has no one thought of this?!
As such, we come up with the following:
1 + 1 + 7 + 7 + 7 + 7 + 2 + 9 + 18 =/= 1 + 12 + 12 + 9 + 9 + 21 + 21
This equals 59 =/= 85
This is quickly and easily simplified into 59 < 85
And so, after long amounts of research and flawless, highly skilled math, none of which could possibly be wrong, I give you our conclusion.
A goo that gets bigger = 59.
A little outhouse = 85
Therefore
Cake = 59
Pie = 85
And finally, therefore, the ultimate conclusion:
Cake < Pie
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)