Comments on: Nerd Love Solve for “i”

By: fizzy

fizzy — Fri, 19 Mar 2010 03:39:04 +0000

DAMMIT!!! My bad. The “3″ is supposed to be there. Forget what I said in my first comment. rofl

By: fizzy

fizzy — Fri, 19 Mar 2010 03:37:40 +0000

Wow! After I read the follow-ups, I didn’t realize how many people wrote the same thing. lol

By: fizzy

fizzy — Fri, 19 Mar 2010 03:35:51 +0000

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.

By: VrockPokey

VrockPokey — Wed, 17 Mar 2010 07:25:24 +0000

Thanks, General Obvious (he got promoted today)

By: Josh Thompson

Josh Thompson — Wed, 17 Mar 2010 04:41:41 +0000

Ethan, your retarded, when dividing a fraction by a negative number the signs switch. (assuming its a less than/greater than equation)

By: lexi

lexi — Tue, 16 Mar 2010 23:15:01 +0000

haha i like that so true

By: lexi

lexi — Tue, 16 Mar 2010 23:11:38 +0000

yes it is.. if it is divided by a negitive the sign switches. juss so ya know lol

By: NN

NN — Mon, 15 Mar 2010 00:59:16 +0000

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

By: NN

NN — Mon, 15 Mar 2010 00:49:34 +0000

I totally agree with you. People should just stop overcomplicating it and enjoy it, cause it’s really cute and romantic

By: NN

NN — Mon, 15 Mar 2010 00:45:30 +0000

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.

By: Bryan

Bryan — Tue, 09 Mar 2010 17:38:36 +0000

actually it is correct, because you’re dividing by a negative number which causes the sign to flip.

By: Harima

Harima — Fri, 26 Feb 2010 02:54:52 +0000

And you probably know this from experience.

By: amy

amy — Sun, 21 Feb 2010 21:42:06 +0000

You have to switch the direction of the inequality when you multiply or divide by a negative.

By: Bethany

Bethany — Mon, 15 Feb 2010 22:36:07 +0000

It actually is correct to switch the signs. When you divide by a negative, you flip it.

By: conrad141

conrad141 — Mon, 08 Feb 2010 03:24:45 +0000

when you divide by a negetive # you switcg the direction of the sign

By: Sarah

Sarah — Thu, 04 Feb 2010 14:33:31 +0000

actually when you divide by a negative the sign switches :p so “>” to “<" is correct.

By: leo

leo — Mon, 01 Feb 2010 02:53:14 +0000

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

By: idk

idk — Wed, 27 Jan 2010 06:33:01 +0000

Omg, I love you. (:

By: chris king

chris king — Tue, 12 Jan 2010 18:44:06 +0000

humans did not invent math. Math has been around for all of eternity

By: chris king

chris king — Tue, 12 Jan 2010 18:39:05 +0000

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?

By: Thoze Guyz

Thoze Guyz — Mon, 11 Jan 2010 01:48:11 +0000

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.

By: Rachel

Rachel — Sun, 03 Jan 2010 20:36:51 +0000

LOL im taking algebra [7th grade]^^ we just learned this.

By: patrick

patrick — Fri, 01 Jan 2010 06:11:08 +0000

“except tht at the end it switches from “>” to “<" which isnt corect"
yes, it is correct, dividing by a negative changes the sign

By: julia

julia — Fri, 25 Dec 2009 04:06:59 +0000

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.

By: josh

josh — Mon, 21 Dec 2009 11:46:57 +0000

It suppose to aretard, the sign changes because you divided it.
BA1

By: josh

josh — Mon, 21 Dec 2009 11:45:55 +0000

Its correct because it is being divided hence forth the sign changed… highschool?

By: Ethan101

Ethan101 — Mon, 21 Dec 2009 05:34:30 +0000

except tht at the end it switches from “>” to “<" which isnt corect

By: singer2be

singer2be — Sun, 20 Dec 2009 00:43:03 +0000

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

By: Aliquot

Aliquot — Fri, 18 Dec 2009 05:08:56 +0000

“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.”

By: Aliquot

Aliquot — Fri, 18 Dec 2009 05:04:57 +0000

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.

By: Aliquot

Aliquot — Fri, 18 Dec 2009 04:55:28 +0000

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.

By: Aliquot

Aliquot — Fri, 18 Dec 2009 04:48:47 +0000

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."

By: Aliquot

Aliquot — Fri, 18 Dec 2009 04:43:38 +0000

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.

By: Lol

Lol — Fri, 18 Dec 2009 04:39:40 +0000

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’

By: Lol

Lol — Fri, 18 Dec 2009 04:36:05 +0000

Trigonometry:
The most hardcore math in existence.

Give me a break. ._.

By: haizenberk

haizenberk — Sun, 06 Dec 2009 10:52:05 +0000

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…

By: haizenberk

haizenberk — Sun, 06 Dec 2009 10:19:51 +0000

whatever it is – cool/sweet/otherwise – we are proud to announce you, ladies and gentlemen, that the maths is correct. and that is final.

By: jacquepirate

jacquepirate — Sun, 06 Dec 2009 02:58:32 +0000

I is the moment of inertia in physics.

By: jacquepirate

jacquepirate — Sun, 06 Dec 2009 02:55:42 +0000

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.

By: AA

AA — Sat, 05 Dec 2009 18:40:49 +0000

the first equation you gave doesn’t seem to work, nor is it relevant to any of this

By: AA

AA — Sat, 05 Dec 2009 18:36:17 +0000

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

By: Nick R. Bocker comment reader

Nick R. Bocker comment reader — Sat, 05 Dec 2009 09:07:14 +0000

I totally agree, this isn’t an equation at all.

By: vintagegeekgirl

vintagegeekgirl — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 02:53:49 +0000

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

By: Theldonio

Theldonio — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 22:23:34 +0000

I use it to amuse myself when I’m bored.

By: Aaron

Aaron — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 23:03:39 +0000

i’m in 8th grade and i know this.
what is the world coming to.

By: Aaron

Aaron — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 23:00:35 +0000

i am diggin your name dude.

By: Petey

Petey — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 20:39:06 +0000

lol, dude’s reply was better than the post anyways

By: Scarfy

Scarfy — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 06:17:07 +0000

Airline attendants! At the bottom level at least.

By: Scarfy

Scarfy — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 06:14:39 +0000

Divide by zero = fun fun fun!

and yes, that’s right, I just wanted to put the joke in an appropriate spot.

By: lolololol

lolololol — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 00:50:57 +0000

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.