# Maths Joke! Watch

Report

#81

For maths students out there, you may have seen some of these proofs before:

Proof of Blatant Assertion: Use words and phrases like

"clearly...,""obviously...," "it is easily shown that...," and "as any fool

can plainly see..."

Proof by Seduction: "If you will just agree to believe this, you might get

a better final grade."

Proof by Intimidation: "You better believe this if you want to pass the

course."

Proof by Interruption: Keep interrupting until your opponent gives up.

Proof by Misconception: An example of this is the Freshman's Conception of

the Limit Process: "2 equals 3 for large values of 2." Once introduced, any

conclusion is reachable.

Proof by Obfuscation: A long list of lemmas is helpful in this case - the

more, the better.

Proof by Confusion: This is a more refined form of proof by

obfuscation. The long list of lemmas should be arranged into circular

patterns of reasoning - and perhaps more baroque structures such as

figure-eights and fleurs-de-lis.

Proof by Exhaustion: This is a modification of an inductive proof. Instead

of going to the general case after proving the first one, prove the second

case, then the third, then the fourth, and so on - until a sufficiently

large n is achieved whereby the nth case is being propounded to a soundly

sleeping audience.

More proof methods: Proof by passion: The author gives the proof with a lot

of passion,

expressive eyes and vigorous movements...

Proof by example: The author gives only the case n = 2 and suggests that

it contains most of the ideas of the general proof.

Proof by intimidation: 'Trivial.'

Proof by vigorous handwaving: Works well in a classroom or seminar

setting.

Proof by cumbersome notation: Best done with access to at least four

alphabets and special symbols.

Proof by exhaustion: An issue or two of a journal devoted to your proof

is useful.

Proof by omission: 'The reader may easily supply the details.' 'The other

253 cases are analogous.' '...'

Proof by obfuscation: A long plotless sequence of true and/or

meaningless syntactically related statements.

Proof by wishful citation:

The author cites the negation, converse, or generalization of a

theorem from literature to support his claims.

Proof by funding: How could three different government agencies be

wrong?

Proof by personal communication: 'Eight-dimensional colored cycle

stripping is NP-complete [Karp, personal communication].'

Proof by reduction to the wrong problem: 'To see that infinite-

dimensional colored cycle stripping is decidable, we reduce it to

the halting problem.'

Proof by reference to inaccessible literature: The author cites a simple

corollary of a theorem to be found in a privately circulated memoir

of the Slovenian Philological Society, 1883.

Proof by importance: A large body of useful consequences all follow from

the proposition in question.

Proof by accumulated evidence: Long and diligent search has not revealed

a counterexample.

Proof by cosmology: The negation of the proposition is unimaginable or

meaningless. Popular for proofs of the existence of God.

Proof by mutual reference: In reference A, Theorem 5 is said to follow

from Theorem 3 in reference B, which is shown from Corollary 6.2 in

reference C, which is an easy consequence of Theorem 5 in reference

A.

Proof by metaproof: A method is given to construct the desired proof.

The correctness of the method is proved by any of these techniques.

Proof by picture: A more convincing form of proof by example. Combines

well with proof by omission.

Proof by vehement assertion: It is useful to have some kind of authority

in relation to the audience.

Proof by ghost reference: Nothing even remotely resembling the cited

theorem appears in the reference given.

Proof by forward reference: Reference is usually to a forthcoming paper

of the author, which is often not as forthcoming as at first.

Proof by semantic shift: Some standard but inconvenient definitions are

changed for the statement of the result.

Proof by appeal to intuition: Cloud-shaped drawings frequently help

here.

Proof of Blatant Assertion: Use words and phrases like

"clearly...,""obviously...," "it is easily shown that...," and "as any fool

can plainly see..."

Proof by Seduction: "If you will just agree to believe this, you might get

a better final grade."

Proof by Intimidation: "You better believe this if you want to pass the

course."

Proof by Interruption: Keep interrupting until your opponent gives up.

Proof by Misconception: An example of this is the Freshman's Conception of

the Limit Process: "2 equals 3 for large values of 2." Once introduced, any

conclusion is reachable.

Proof by Obfuscation: A long list of lemmas is helpful in this case - the

more, the better.

Proof by Confusion: This is a more refined form of proof by

obfuscation. The long list of lemmas should be arranged into circular

patterns of reasoning - and perhaps more baroque structures such as

figure-eights and fleurs-de-lis.

Proof by Exhaustion: This is a modification of an inductive proof. Instead

of going to the general case after proving the first one, prove the second

case, then the third, then the fourth, and so on - until a sufficiently

large n is achieved whereby the nth case is being propounded to a soundly

sleeping audience.

More proof methods: Proof by passion: The author gives the proof with a lot

of passion,

expressive eyes and vigorous movements...

Proof by example: The author gives only the case n = 2 and suggests that

it contains most of the ideas of the general proof.

Proof by intimidation: 'Trivial.'

Proof by vigorous handwaving: Works well in a classroom or seminar

setting.

Proof by cumbersome notation: Best done with access to at least four

alphabets and special symbols.

Proof by exhaustion: An issue or two of a journal devoted to your proof

is useful.

Proof by omission: 'The reader may easily supply the details.' 'The other

253 cases are analogous.' '...'

Proof by obfuscation: A long plotless sequence of true and/or

meaningless syntactically related statements.

Proof by wishful citation:

The author cites the negation, converse, or generalization of a

theorem from literature to support his claims.

Proof by funding: How could three different government agencies be

wrong?

Proof by personal communication: 'Eight-dimensional colored cycle

stripping is NP-complete [Karp, personal communication].'

Proof by reduction to the wrong problem: 'To see that infinite-

dimensional colored cycle stripping is decidable, we reduce it to

the halting problem.'

Proof by reference to inaccessible literature: The author cites a simple

corollary of a theorem to be found in a privately circulated memoir

of the Slovenian Philological Society, 1883.

Proof by importance: A large body of useful consequences all follow from

the proposition in question.

Proof by accumulated evidence: Long and diligent search has not revealed

a counterexample.

Proof by cosmology: The negation of the proposition is unimaginable or

meaningless. Popular for proofs of the existence of God.

Proof by mutual reference: In reference A, Theorem 5 is said to follow

from Theorem 3 in reference B, which is shown from Corollary 6.2 in

reference C, which is an easy consequence of Theorem 5 in reference

A.

Proof by metaproof: A method is given to construct the desired proof.

The correctness of the method is proved by any of these techniques.

Proof by picture: A more convincing form of proof by example. Combines

well with proof by omission.

Proof by vehement assertion: It is useful to have some kind of authority

in relation to the audience.

Proof by ghost reference: Nothing even remotely resembling the cited

theorem appears in the reference given.

Proof by forward reference: Reference is usually to a forthcoming paper

of the author, which is often not as forthcoming as at first.

Proof by semantic shift: Some standard but inconvenient definitions are

changed for the statement of the result.

Proof by appeal to intuition: Cloud-shaped drawings frequently help

here.

0

reply

Report

#82

Even more Proof Techniques

Methods for getting people to believe you (as good as, if not better than,

proof). A collection of proof techniques that will prove invaluable to

both mathematicians and members of the general public.

PROOF TECHNIQUE #1 - 'Proof By Induction'

1. Obtain a large power transformer.

2. Find someone who does not believe your theorem.

3. Get this person to hold the terminals on the HV side of the

transformer.

4. Apply 25000 volts AC to the LV side of the transformer.

5. Repeat step (4) until they agree with the theorem.

PROOF TECHNIQUE #2 - 'Proof By Contradiction'

1. State your theorem.

2. Wait for someone to disagree.

3. Contradict them.

PROOF TECHNIQUE #3 - Fire Proof

1. Summon all your inferiors for a departmental meeting.

2. Present your theorem.

3. Fire those who disagree.

PROOF TECHNIQUE #4 - The Famous Water Proof

1. State your theorem.

2. Wait for someone to disagree.

3. Drown them.

NB. This is closely related to the 'bullet' proof, but is easier

to make look like an accident.

PROOF TECHNIQUE #5 - Idiot Proof

1. State your theorem.

2. Write exhaustive documentation with glossy colour pictures

and arrows about which bit goes where.

3. Challenge anyone to not understand it.

PROOF TECHNIQUE #6 - Child Proof

1. State your theorem.

2. Encapsulate it in epoxy and shape it into an ellipsoid.

3. Put it in a jar with all the other proofs (one with one of

those Press-to-Open lids).

4. Give it to a professor and challenge him to open it.

PROOF TECHNIQUE #7 - Rabbit Proof

1. Generate theorems at an altogether startling rate, much

faster than anybody is able to refute them. Use up every

body else's paper. Run away at the slightest sign of danger.

2. Leave any crap in small, easily identified piles, in

prominent places where you no longer are, and it cannot in

fact be proven that you ever were.

PROOF TECHNIQUE #8 - Fool Proof

1. State your theorem.

2. Invite colleagues to comment.

3. If they don't agree, exclaim loudly, "You Fools!"

PROOF METHODS

WIPE-METHOD: One wipes the blackboard, immediately after writing. (write

to the right, wipe to the left.)

METHOD OF EXACT DESCRIPTION: Let p be a point q, that we will call r.

PREHISTORIC METHOD: Somebody has once proven this.

AUTHORITY BELIEVE METHOD: That must be right. It stands in Forster.

AUTHORITY CRITICAL METHOD: That must be wrong. It stands in Jaenich.

COGNITION PHILOSOPHY, METHOD 1: I recognized the problem!

COGNITION PHILOSOPHY, METHOD 2: I believe, I recognized the probelm!

PACIFISTIC METHOD: Thus, before we fight about it, let's just believe it

COMMUNICATIVE METHOD: Does anybody of you know it?

KAPITALISTIC METHOD: The profit is maximal, if we do not proof anything,

because that costs the leasts pieces of chalk.

COMMUNISTIC METHOD: We proof it together. Everybody writes a line and the

result is government property.

NUMERICAL METHOD: Roughly rounded, it is correct.

SMART GUYS METHOD: We do not proof that now. Anyway, it is to complicated

for the physicists.

TIMELESS METHOD: We proof so long till nobody knows wether the proof is

ended or not.

Methods for getting people to believe you (as good as, if not better than,

proof). A collection of proof techniques that will prove invaluable to

both mathematicians and members of the general public.

PROOF TECHNIQUE #1 - 'Proof By Induction'

1. Obtain a large power transformer.

2. Find someone who does not believe your theorem.

3. Get this person to hold the terminals on the HV side of the

transformer.

4. Apply 25000 volts AC to the LV side of the transformer.

5. Repeat step (4) until they agree with the theorem.

PROOF TECHNIQUE #2 - 'Proof By Contradiction'

1. State your theorem.

2. Wait for someone to disagree.

3. Contradict them.

PROOF TECHNIQUE #3 - Fire Proof

1. Summon all your inferiors for a departmental meeting.

2. Present your theorem.

3. Fire those who disagree.

PROOF TECHNIQUE #4 - The Famous Water Proof

1. State your theorem.

2. Wait for someone to disagree.

3. Drown them.

NB. This is closely related to the 'bullet' proof, but is easier

to make look like an accident.

PROOF TECHNIQUE #5 - Idiot Proof

1. State your theorem.

2. Write exhaustive documentation with glossy colour pictures

and arrows about which bit goes where.

3. Challenge anyone to not understand it.

PROOF TECHNIQUE #6 - Child Proof

1. State your theorem.

2. Encapsulate it in epoxy and shape it into an ellipsoid.

3. Put it in a jar with all the other proofs (one with one of

those Press-to-Open lids).

4. Give it to a professor and challenge him to open it.

PROOF TECHNIQUE #7 - Rabbit Proof

1. Generate theorems at an altogether startling rate, much

faster than anybody is able to refute them. Use up every

body else's paper. Run away at the slightest sign of danger.

2. Leave any crap in small, easily identified piles, in

prominent places where you no longer are, and it cannot in

fact be proven that you ever were.

PROOF TECHNIQUE #8 - Fool Proof

1. State your theorem.

2. Invite colleagues to comment.

3. If they don't agree, exclaim loudly, "You Fools!"

PROOF METHODS

WIPE-METHOD: One wipes the blackboard, immediately after writing. (write

to the right, wipe to the left.)

METHOD OF EXACT DESCRIPTION: Let p be a point q, that we will call r.

PREHISTORIC METHOD: Somebody has once proven this.

AUTHORITY BELIEVE METHOD: That must be right. It stands in Forster.

AUTHORITY CRITICAL METHOD: That must be wrong. It stands in Jaenich.

COGNITION PHILOSOPHY, METHOD 1: I recognized the problem!

COGNITION PHILOSOPHY, METHOD 2: I believe, I recognized the probelm!

PACIFISTIC METHOD: Thus, before we fight about it, let's just believe it

COMMUNICATIVE METHOD: Does anybody of you know it?

KAPITALISTIC METHOD: The profit is maximal, if we do not proof anything,

because that costs the leasts pieces of chalk.

COMMUNISTIC METHOD: We proof it together. Everybody writes a line and the

result is government property.

NUMERICAL METHOD: Roughly rounded, it is correct.

SMART GUYS METHOD: We do not proof that now. Anyway, it is to complicated

for the physicists.

TIMELESS METHOD: We proof so long till nobody knows wether the proof is

ended or not.

0

reply

Report

#83

Exercise 125821 G, page 314159

1)i)a)I)what is the plural of 1/cos

answer- secs (sex)

1)i)a)II)what number can blonds count up to

answer- 68, 69 is a bit of a mouthful

1)i)a)I)what is the plural of 1/cos

answer- secs (sex)

1)i)a)II)what number can blonds count up to

answer- 68, 69 is a bit of a mouthful

0

reply

Report

#84

Did you know it is now illegal to do calculus while under the influence of alcohol?

You can get arrested for drink deriving

You can get arrested for drink deriving

0

reply

Report

#86

Teacher: What is 2k + k?

Student: 3000

Q: What is the difference between a Ph.D. in mathematics and a large pizza?

A: A large pizza can feed a family of four...

Math problems? Call 1-800-[(10x)(13i)^2]-[sin(xy)/2.362x]

Student: 3000

Q: What is the difference between a Ph.D. in mathematics and a large pizza?

A: A large pizza can feed a family of four...

Math problems? Call 1-800-[(10x)(13i)^2]-[sin(xy)/2.362x]

0

reply

Report

#87

Q: What is the difference between a Ph.D. in mathematics and a large pizza?

A: A large pizza can feed a family of four...

A: A large pizza can feed a family of four...

0

reply

Report

#88

(Original post by

Teacher: What is 2k + k?

Student: 3000

Q: What is the difference between a Ph.D. in mathematics and a large pizza?

A: A large pizza can feed a family of four...

Math problems? Call 1-800-[(10x)(13i)^2]-[sin(xy)/2.362x]

**rpotter**)Teacher: What is 2k + k?

Student: 3000

Q: What is the difference between a Ph.D. in mathematics and a large pizza?

A: A large pizza can feed a family of four...

Math problems? Call 1-800-[(10x)(13i)^2]-[sin(xy)/2.362x]

0

reply

Report

#89

Three teachers are sitting in the staff room, and discussing their classes. A teacher asks the philosophy teacher what do you say to your class when they come in? He replies well I say good morning and we discuss philosophy. The same question is asked to a biology teacher and she replies well I say good morning and we talk about the biology. The maths teacher replies well I say good morning and my class writes it down!

0

reply

Report

#90

A newlywed husband is discouraged by his wife's obsession with mathematics. Afraid of being second fiddle to her profession, he finally confronts her: "Do you love math more than me?"

"Of course not, dear - I love you much more!"

Happy, although sceptical, he challenges her: "Well, then prove it!"

Pondering a bit, she responds: "Ok... Let epsilon be greater than zero..."

Statistics Canada is hiring mathematicians. Three recent graduates are invited for an interview: one has a degree in pure mathematics, another one in applied math, and the third one obtained his B.Sc. in statistics.

All three are asked the same question: "What is one third plus two thirds?"

The pure mathematician: "It's one."

The applied mathematician takes out his pocket calculator, punches in the numbers, and replies: "It's 0.999999999."

The statistician: "What do you want it to be?"

"Of course not, dear - I love you much more!"

Happy, although sceptical, he challenges her: "Well, then prove it!"

Pondering a bit, she responds: "Ok... Let epsilon be greater than zero..."

Statistics Canada is hiring mathematicians. Three recent graduates are invited for an interview: one has a degree in pure mathematics, another one in applied math, and the third one obtained his B.Sc. in statistics.

All three are asked the same question: "What is one third plus two thirds?"

The pure mathematician: "It's one."

The applied mathematician takes out his pocket calculator, punches in the numbers, and replies: "It's 0.999999999."

The statistician: "What do you want it to be?"

0

reply

Report

#91

PROOF THAT GIRLS ARE EVIL

Girls require time and money G = TM

Time is money G = MM = MÂ²

But money is the root of all evil M =√E

So we are forced to conclude that G = (√E)Â²

G = E

Girls require time and money G = TM

Time is money G = MM = MÂ²

But money is the root of all evil M =√E

So we are forced to conclude that G = (√E)Â²

G = E

0

reply

Report

#92

A quick limerick:

(say z as an American would i.e. zeeee)

the integral of z squared dz

between 1 and the cube root of 3

multiplied by the cosine

of 3 pi over 9

is the log of the cube root of e

Sorry for taking up loads of posts - got these of another thread and have them on my pen drive. Some are good - some bad

(say z as an American would i.e. zeeee)

the integral of z squared dz

between 1 and the cube root of 3

multiplied by the cosine

of 3 pi over 9

is the log of the cube root of e

Sorry for taking up loads of posts - got these of another thread and have them on my pen drive. Some are good - some bad

0

reply

X

### Quick Reply

Back

to top

to top