## Y + 2 = Y ... Anyone have the answer? | |

Anonymous Coward User ID: 1393542 Australia 07/06/2012 12:36 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |

Anonymous Coward User ID: 19203755 United States 07/06/2012 12:38 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |

Dr.DoomLittleUser ID: 6231580 United States 07/06/2012 12:40 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | I'm not satifisfied with that answer. It is subjective; and an example of dictatory mathamatics. Last Edited by Intergalactic Diplomat on 07/06/2012 12:42 AM |

Dr.DoomLittleUser ID: 6231580 United States 07/06/2012 12:41 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |

Borian (OP)User ID: 1139038 United States 07/06/2012 12:43 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |

Anonymous Coward User ID: 19048689 Australia 07/06/2012 12:43 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |

Anonymous Coward User ID: 2145552 Canada 07/06/2012 12:44 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | I may have fell for a very old troll, but this one is halfway driving me nuts. Quoting: Google is no help. Just sarcastic nerd replies. Borian Y + 2 = Y Y - Y = - 2 0 = - 2 Impossible. Your problem's formula is WRONG. X + 2 = X X - X = - 2 0 = - 2 Impossible, too, with X I tried it with A through Z and it is still impossible. ;-) |

Anonymous Coward User ID: 19193430 United States 07/06/2012 12:44 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |

Borian (OP)User ID: 1139038 United States 07/06/2012 12:45 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | I may have fell for a very old troll, but this one is halfway driving me nuts. Quoting: Google is no help. Just sarcastic nerd replies. Borian Y + 2 = Y Y - Y = - 2 0 = - 2 Impossible. Your problem's formula is WRONG. X + 2 = X X - X = - 2 0 = - 2 Impossible, too, with X I tried it with A through Z and it is still impossible. ;-) Anonymous Coward 2145552 Ha. I got good results from Ab and tG. |

whydidubanme User ID: 18671699 United States 07/06/2012 12:45 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | So this I know something about, and most the previous responses are on the right track. The problem with 2+y=y is the = sign. Its simply not an equality. Proof: Dividing y (2+y)/y = y/y 2/y +1 =1 2/y = 0 .... Dividing by (y+2) (2+y)/(2+y) = y/(2+y) 1= y/2 +1 0 = y/2 therefore... 2/y = y/2 multiply by y.... 2/y= y/2 if y = infinity, then 0 = infinity. 0 does not equal infinity... That why it became to introduct limits. The limit of 2/(y+2) as y ---> infinity does = zero. Sorry I dont feel like figuring out how to enter the sigma sign indicating limit with the correct nomenclature. However, it is a good question as it forms a basis for calculus which utilizes infinity and 0 in order to analyze the change of variables impacting the output of the formula function. Go wiki calculus and you'll see, its all about the core of the OPs inquiry. |

Anonymous Coward User ID: 2145552 Canada 07/06/2012 12:46 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |

Borian (OP)User ID: 1139038 United States 07/06/2012 12:46 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |

Dr.DoomLittleUser ID: 6231580 United States 07/06/2012 12:47 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |

Anonymous Coward User ID: 19212356 United States 07/06/2012 12:47 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |

Borian (OP)User ID: 1139038 United States 07/06/2012 12:49 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |

Dr.DoomLittleUser ID: 6231580 United States 07/06/2012 12:51 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | So this I know something about, and most the previous responses are on the right track. The problem with 2+y=y is the = sign. Its simply not an equality. Quoting: Proof: Dividing y (2+y)/y = y/y 2/y +1 =1 2/y = 0 .... Dividing by (y+2) (2+y)/(2+y) = y/(2+y) 1= y/2 +1 0 = y/2 therefore... 2/y = y/2 multiply by y.... 2/y= y/2 if y = infinity, then 0 = infinity. 0 does not equal infinity... That why it became to introduct limits. The limit of 2/(y+2) as y ---> infinity does = zero. Sorry I dont feel like figuring out how to enter the sigma sign indicating limit with the correct nomenclature. However, it is a good question as it forms a basis for calculus which utilizes infinity and 0 in order to analyze the change of variables impacting the output of the formula function. Go wiki calculus and you'll see, its all about the core of the OPs inquiry. whydidubanme 18671699 i like that..but It does show however that our sience will always be proved WRONG over time, as well as our logic. So the original formula, appearing at the surface to be invalid, or a lie: stating y = y+2, is actually a misprint of another equation that is an inequality? sounds a bit stretchy. Last Edited by Intergalactic Diplomat on 07/06/2012 12:55 AM |

Anonymous Coward User ID: 13011199 United States 07/06/2012 12:55 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |

Dr.DoomLittleUser ID: 6231580 United States 07/06/2012 12:56 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Objection. Speculative, Subjective, not a foundation in fact but opinion. I am concluding the statement of Y=Y+2 is a lie. Or am i missing some secret knowledge where constants are defined in motion, or in metamorphosis, not as fixed matter; this seems highly subjective. It suggests an entry into another dimension or an alternating constant; a constant that is defined by its change a tangent? Last Edited by Intergalactic Diplomat on 07/06/2012 01:04 AM |

Anonymous Coward User ID: 16178844 United States 07/06/2012 12:57 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |

Anonymous Coward User ID: 9501973 South Africa 07/06/2012 12:59 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |

Borian (OP)User ID: 1139038 United States 07/06/2012 01:04 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |

Anonymous Coward User ID: 18671699 United States 07/06/2012 01:05 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Mispring? I dont see what you mean by that... Science is not being proved wrong. No matter what happens with quantum physics, 1 will always equal 1. You can multiply 1 x Y and it will always equal 1 x Z but only if y = Z. It can and does get incredibly complex but at the end of the day, solving such an equation or executing a mathematical function can always be reduced to 1 = 1. 0 = 0 etc. when reduced to its simplist form. Look up calculus, its not nearly as daunting to understand as you might think. Solving story problems using calculus on the other hand is much more difficult, its much easier to solve an equation than do determine what equation needs to be solved. Responding to: i like that..but It does show however that our sience will always be proved WRONG over time, as well as our logic. So the original formula, appearing at the surface to be invalid, or a lie: stating y = y+2, is actually a misprint of another equation that is an inequality? sounds a bit stretchy. |

Rabid_WolfUser ID: 19215517 United States 07/06/2012 01:48 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |

Anonymous Coward User ID: 3632012 United States 07/06/2012 01:54 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |

Anonymous Coward User ID: 14437616 United States 07/06/2012 02:33 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |

Anonymous Coward User ID: 1300598 United States 07/06/2012 02:43 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |

Anonymous Coward User ID: 19127061 United States 07/06/2012 02:43 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |

Anonymous Coward 07/06/2012 02:47 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |

Anonymous Coward User ID: 1034800 United States 07/06/2012 03:05 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |

Anonymous Coward User ID: 19078950 United States 07/06/2012 03:06 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |

Related Threads

- Double amputee moves prosthetic arms by intuitive thought
- Feminism Backlash: Media Programming, Endocrine Disruptors, Will Men Find Their Hearts Again?
- The Baltic Dry Index Has Never Crashed This Fast Post-Thanksgiving
- Why There's No Ebola Vaccine
- What is a New World Order?
- How Nonprofit Hospitals Are Seizing Patients’ Wages
- Cop: We Need Military Equipment Because of “Constitutionalists”
- Forget North Korea: Watch Out for Chinese Censorship of Hollywood
- Vermont Governor Abandons Single-Payer Healthcare
- How Germany Was Partitioned. Lessons for Ukraine
- EPA Declines to Classify Coal Ash as Hazardous Waste
- Protesters shut down part of Mall of America in Minnesota
- World War III - The Calm Before the Storm
- EFF in Court to Argue NSA Data Collection from Internet Backbone Is Unconstitutional
- Unacceptable Levels: The Chemicals In Our Bodies; How They Got There and What To Do About It
- Satanic Temple Invokes Supreme Court Ruling to Force Display at Florida Capitol Building
- US seeks to overthrow Venezuela government: official
- Privacy will not exist in 10 years
- Correction: Tonight isn't the longest night in Earth's history
- Creep of the Week: Convicted Wall Street trader sues customer who turned him in!
- Obama condemns Sony's decision to drop film, says US must retaliate and pass cyber bill
- Bush v. Clinton In 2016? New World Order Dream Matchup Being Touted As ‘Inevitable’
- Court Rules You CAN Be ‘Too Smart’ to Be a Cop
- Mainstream Media Ignores Massive Open Carry Protest
- Police Pre-Crime Algorithm Uses Social Media Posts Against You in Real-Time