/sci/ - Science & Math » Thread #12675683

20KiB, 590x200, IMG-20210206-WA0001.jpg

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO

Anonymous Sun 07 Feb 00:30:27 2021 No.12675683 View Reply Original Report

Quoted By: >>12675701 >>12675712 >>12675754 >>12675756 >>12675758 >>12676034 >>12677420 >>12677501 >>12678890 >>12679066 >>12679615 >>12680471 >>12680642 >>12680684 >>12680831

Is it possible to divide a number by 2 so many times that the result becomes negative?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 07 Feb 2021 00:34:05 No.12675696 Report

Quoted By: >>12679614

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 07 Feb 2021 00:34:36 No.12675701 Report

Quoted By:

>>12675683
are you retarded?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 07 Feb 2021 00:36:18 No.12675712 Report

Quoted By: >>12675743 >>12679614

>>12675683
No
$\forall n>0;k\in \mathbb{N}$
${2^k}>0$
$\therefore \frac{n}{2^k}>0$

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 07157392-F2AC-432A-8EC9-AAD443FF (...).jpg, 55KiB, 406x537

Anonymous Sun 07 Feb 2021 00:36:24 No.12675713 Report

Quoted By: >>12679614

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 07 Feb 2021 00:36:57 No.12675715 Report

Quoted By: >>12675720

If you use a complex number instead of 2 yeah can

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 07 Feb 2021 00:38:09 No.12675720 Report

Quoted By:

>>12675715
*you can

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 07 Feb 2021 00:46:14 No.12675743 Report

Quoted By: >>12675770 >>12680417

>>12675712
Consider $k\in \mathbb{C}$

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 07 Feb 2021 00:49:20 No.12675754 Report

Quoted By:

>>12675683
I don't know, maybe? Why are you asking me?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 07 Feb 2021 00:50:02 No.12675756 Report

Quoted By: >>12675761 >>12677442

>>12675683
Gauss once took a ? so small that ?/2 was negative

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 07 Feb 2021 00:50:11 No.12675758 Report

Quoted By: >>12680422

>>12675683
Of course, provided the number is negative in the first place.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 07 Feb 2021 00:51:00 No.12675761 Report

Quoted By:

>>12675756
To be fair the French government legislated an alternative interpretation of epsilon delta

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 07 Feb 2021 00:53:09 No.12675770 Report

Quoted By:

>>12675743
Not really what OP's asking

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 07 Feb 2021 01:54:34 No.12676034 Report

Quoted By:

>>12675683
Sure. You only need to divide -40 by 2 once to get a negative quotient.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 15AADE16-4D1A-48AD-8E68-624C1662 (...).jpg, 301KiB, 1647x413

Anonymous Sun 07 Feb 2021 08:08:28 No.12677046 Report

Quoted By: >>12677345

Saw it on another website, had no answers, couldn’t solve it. Thoughts? This does not seem like a trivial question.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 07 Feb 2021 10:31:48 No.12677345 Report

Quoted By: >>12677372

>>12677046
I'm confused. If n>2, what's to stop the first player from simply choosing a different digit to whatever the second player chose? How can P1 lose in that situation?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 07 Feb 2021 10:45:10 No.12677372 Report

Quoted By: >>12677376

>>12677345
Just consider an example game n=3
01010
Player 1 loses.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 07 Feb 2021 10:46:32 No.12677376 Report

Quoted By: >>12677379

>>12677372
Am I dumb? I thought that consecutive digits are 000? Are those not alternating digits?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 07 Feb 2021 10:47:59 No.12677379 Report

Quoted By: >>12677382

>>12677376
The block
010
appears twice.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 07 Feb 2021 10:50:30 No.12677382 Report

Quoted By: >>12677389

>>12677379
Aaaaaaaah, it means that if a sequence of length n is repeated, the player that finishes it loses. Gotcha, cheers anon.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 07 Feb 2021 10:54:07 No.12677389 Report

Quoted By: >>12677418

>>12677382
Ironically you already found the winning strategy. Except that it is the winning strategy of player 2. If player 2 always chooses the opposite of player 1 then he can't lose.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 07 Feb 2021 11:13:50 No.12677418 Report

Quoted By:

>>12677389
I'm glad I did, but I'm struggling to see how that result is achieved mathematically.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 07 Feb 2021 11:14:51 No.12677420 Report

Quoted By:

>>12675683
This is true. Good thing most people aren't starving, or that would happen to us as people as well lol (we're actually close to monkeys, especially the low IQ individuals)

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 07 Feb 2021 11:26:17 No.12677442 Report

Quoted By:

>>12675756
i love you

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 07 Feb 2021 11:38:38 No.12677459 Report

Quoted By:

Yes. -2/2=-1

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 07 Feb 2021 12:09:18 No.12677501 Report

Quoted By:

>>12675683
Yes. Divide - 2 by 2 enough times and you will see

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 07 Feb 2021 20:11:54 No.12678890 Report

Quoted By:

>>12675683
Have you ever heard that humans are higher being than monkeys, and letting your inner monkey speak devolves you?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 07 Feb 2021 21:08:21 No.12679066 Report

Quoted By: >>12679640

>>12675683
The monkey does not have the bananas though, just the money that in theory worth a lot of bananas. But money won't magically turn into bananas.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 07 Feb 2021 23:52:49 No.12679614 Report

Quoted By: >>12679620

>>12675696
>>12675712
>>12675713
prove it
protip: you cant

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 07 Feb 2021 23:53:38 No.12679615 Report

Quoted By:

>>12675683
>monkeys
>sensible
Hah, almost had me there.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 07 Feb 2021 23:55:54 No.12679620 Report

Quoted By: >>12679628

>>12679614
second reply did

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 07 Feb 2021 23:59:57 No.12679628 Report

Quoted By:

>>12679620
did you test it?

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 08 Feb 2021 00:04:49 No.12679640 Report

Quoted By:

>>12679066
he has the money due to private ownership of banana trees

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 08 Feb 2021 00:53:06 No.12679769 Report

Quoted By:

-2/2 = -1

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 08 Feb 2021 04:34:20 No.12680417 Report

Quoted By:

>>12675743
based

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 08 Feb 2021 04:36:22 No.12680422 Report

Quoted By:

>>12675758
the GOAT

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 08 Feb 2021 04:53:13 No.12680471 Report

Quoted By: >>12680652

>>12675683
Idk. If you divide any number of pizzas by 2, do you eventually get a negative amount of pizza?

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 08 Feb 2021 06:16:40 No.12680642 Report

Quoted By:

>>12675683
Let 2 = e^(2*pi*i + log(2))
2^(-1-3-9-27-81-...) = 2^(-1/(1-3)) = 2^(1/2) = e^(pi*i+log(2)/2) = -sqrt(2)

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 08 Feb 2021 06:22:37 No.12680652 Report

Quoted By: >>12680854

>>12680471
If you add n pizzas every day, will you ever get -1/12 pizzas?

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 08 Feb 2021 06:34:18 No.12680684 Report

Quoted By:

>>12675683
maybe on a shitty computer or software that doesn't handle overflow well

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 08 Feb 2021 07:38:31 No.12680831 Report

Quoted By:

>>12675683
As long as its a negative number, you only have to divide it by 2 once to get a negative result.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 08 Feb 2021 07:53:27 No.12680854 Report

Quoted By:

>>12680652
Climb back into your grave, Ramanujan

Capcode	All Only User Posts Only Moderator Posts Only Admin Posts Only Developer Posts
Show Posts	All Only With Images Only Without Images
Deleted Posts	All Only Deleted Posts Only Non-Deleted Posts
Ghost Posts	All Only Ghost Posts Only Non-Ghost Posts
Post Type	All Only Sticky Threads Only Opening Posts Only Reply Posts
Results	All Grouped By Threads
Order	Latest Posts First Oldest Posts First

Your latest searches