Any bored math people on?
 

I have to reduce this long string of algebra and I want to compare my answer to yours, it is so long and tedious that it is error-prone. But for those of you that enjoy this, be my guest:

http://latex.codecogs.com/png.latex?..._1Q_2-bQ_2%5E2

Reduce TR1 and TR2... then, if you are really, really bored, continue:

http://latex.codecogs.com/png.latex?..._2%3DTR_2-TC_2

What a pain in the ass! I will post my results once I am done!

Dude, you are asking on FM where the majority of people couldn't solve 6/2(1+2)?

I am so glad I chose a major that didn't require math.
[yes]

http://latex.codecogs.com/png.latex?...mbda_1)^2}{18}

a=75; b=2

Good thing I'm not bored http://www.discussworldissues.com/fo...es/tongue1.gif

I've got one for you too:

Consider these numbers:

0 1 2 720!

What's the next one?

(answering this question got me dsl at home back in the days http://www.discussworldissues.com/fo...ies/laugh1.gif)

(24!)!

?

Why don't you answer the question if you're so clever big man.

You have to be clever to solve 6/2(1+2)?

Not starting that discussion here. EaG is just being an arrogant prick in a thread that is way out of his depth.

i sux at math :p have u tried asking Wolfram|Alpha? :p

anyway, don't mind EaG, he's just a 4yr old :) sure he'll be 5 this dec but he's still a retarded kid ;)

Yes guys, thanks for all of your help.

YCH, it is 42... do you not understand black and white or something?

That LaTeX site is brilliant! If only that existed when I needed it for short equations.

I agree your answers, didn't at first because when I did Q1.Q2 I put (-)lambda^2 instead of (+)lambda^2.

http://www.chaturmind.com/Smileys//msn/ggab0.gif

You need another factorial. It's n with n factorials.

I never claim to know how to solve these problems (though I could if I want to put the effort in to it). My simple claim was that most people on FM lacked basic math skills and Will is asking these people much more complicated questions. I mean we have indistinguishable proof of such being the case, why do you argue against it? Were you one of them who got that simple problem wrong?

FULOL

Aw, turns out 0! = 1

For some reason I always thought 0! = 0, hence my use of n!!! as the solution. Oh well at least I was basically on the right track.

We have a winner http://www.discussworldissues.com/fo...lies/wink1.gif Nice try though YCH