# Symbolic Maths SocietyWatch

Announcements
Poll: How difficult is the paper?
Very Easy (30)
65.22%
Easy (0)
0%
OK (2)
4.35%
Hard (5)
10.87%
Extremely Difficult (9)
19.57%
This discussion is closed.
5 years ago
#381
(Original post by DJMayes)

I believe Dalek is referring to the shape enclosed by those three circles. I do not know whether the shape has a name; you are the BMO man so you will know more of this geometry than I do.

(Original post by 0x2a)
Ahhh right, I don't know the name of that either.

Is that what he means? It looks suspiciously like a hyperbolic triangle.

Incidentally the sickle-like things stuck to each vertex is called an arbelos (which is in fact also a hyperbolic triangle).
0
#382
(Original post by ukdragon37)
Is that what he means? It looks suspiciously like a hyperbolic triangle.

Incidentally the sickle-like things stuck to each vertex is called an arbelos (which is in fact also a hyperbolic triangle).
it can't be a hyperbolic triangle because as one can see from the diagram the circicles don't actually have any real angles, if you said it did have angles they would all be 0 degrees/radians.
0
5 years ago
#383
(Original post by Dalek1099)
it can't be a hyperbolic triangle because as one can see from the diagram the circicles don't actually have any real angles, if you said it did have angles they would all be 0 degrees/radians.
It is defined by the intersections of circles, at which there certainly are angles. And yes, the angles in this case would be zero, but that does not mean there are no angles and further it does not prevent it at all from being a hyperbolic triangle.

Also see this with an applet that constructs hyperbolic triangles. Your "circircle" is merely one particular case (which it even mentions in the text of that webpage: "As you drag a vertex to infinity (the boundary of the disk), the angle at that vertex goes to zero. ").
0
5 years ago
#384
This is still going?! Christ
0
5 years ago
#385
(Original post by MangoFreak)
This is still going?! Christ
Is this whole thread a joke, or is there some actual maths in it that's beyond me and I can't understand?
0
5 years ago
#386
(Original post by Khallil)
Is this whole thread a joke, or is there some actual maths in it that's beyond me and I can't understand?
It's a joke, just not to the one who created it
0
5 years ago
#387
(Original post by Khallil)
Is this whole thread a joke, or is there some actual maths in it that's beyond me and I can't understand?
The whole thread is utter nonsense.
0
5 years ago
#388
(Original post by Khallil)
Is this whole thread a joke, or is there some actual maths in it that's beyond me and I can't understand?
Exactly what I was thinking, I'm lost

edit: I've found the symbolic maths wikia and I'm baffled
0
#389
(Original post by Khallil)
Is this whole thread a joke, or is there some actual maths in it that's beyond me and I can't understand?
Its new maths based on what we can see in maths like if 4x=16 x=4 but this must mean 44 could equal 16 thus giving us the basic symbolic maths theory that 2 numbers that are close together multiply and hence we can find the value of symbols by analyzing what happens when we remove a symbol from an equation eg 4+3=7 but if we remove the + symbol it becomes 43 which in this case is 4 and 3 close together so its 12 so the value of the symbol is 7/12.From this new maths you can create all sorts of maths like squaring the ratio where for example if you have two numbers a:b in a real ratio(if you share £2 in a ratio 1:4 then the real ratio is £0.4:£1.6 for example) then with the symbol its a+b and without its ab so the value of :=(a+b)/ab then if you square the ratio so you get a::b or a :^2 b and if we let it equal c:d where the ratio constant((a+b)/ab) is the same then c+d=((a+b)(a+b))/(ab) and cd equals a+b and you can use the quadratic formula to solve.
0
5 years ago
#390
(Original post by Dalek1099)
Its new maths based on what we can see in maths like if 4x=16 x=4 but this must mean 44 could equal 16 thus giving us the basic symbolic maths theory that 2 numbers that are close together multiply and hence we can find the value of symbols by analyzing what happens when we remove a symbol from an equation eg 4+3=7 but if we remove the + symbol it becomes 43 which in this case is 4 and 3 close together so its 12 so the value of the symbol is 7/12.From this new maths you can create all sorts of maths like squaring the ratio where for example if you have two numbers a:b in a real ratio(if you share £2 in a ratio 1:4 then the real ratio is £0.4:£1.6 for example) then with the symbol its a+b and without its ab so the value of :=(a+b)/ab then if you square the ratio so you get a::b or a :^2 b and if we let it equal c:d where the ratio constant((a+b)/ab) is the same then c+d=((a+b)(a+b))/(ab) and cd equals a+b and you can use the quadratic formula to solve.
You lost me here.

Also I noticed an unmatched spoiler tag in your sig
0
5 years ago
#391
(Original post by Khallil)
Is this whole thread a joke, or is there some actual maths in it that's beyond me and I can't understand?
did u ever see that wall of meaningless maths?
0
5 years ago
#392
(Original post by Felix Felicis)
Have you seen his sig? He's already predicted his own A-level and STEP grades
So have I, I think. Well I haven't predicted STEP.
I used to think his sig was a joke base on the TSR boasters but it seems he's serious!
0
#393
(Original post by Khallil)
You lost me here.

Also I noticed an unmatched spoiler tag in your sig
You have to think laterally about it if 4x=16 then x=4 if we substitute x back in place of the 4 then we get 44=16.
0
5 years ago
#394
(Original post by Dalek1099)
You have to think laterally about it if 4x=16 then x=4 if we substitute x back in place of the 4 then we get 44=16.
The maths gods just rang and the verdict is unanimous I'm afraid; you're going to hell.
1
5 years ago
#395
(Original post by Where'sPerry?)
Exactly what I was thinking, I'm lost

edit: I've found the symbolic maths wikia and I'm baffled
It's just some kid who's deluded into thinking he 'invented' a new branch of maths...
0
5 years ago
#396
(Original post by Dalek1099)
You have to think laterally about it if 4x=16 then x=4 if we substitute x back in place of the 4 then we get 44=16.
This actually hurts me to read, and anyway, how would you go about actually proving 44=16 ( and don't go dividing by zero, I don't care about what rules there are in your made up maths, that doesn't work)

Also, when two letters are together it means multiply, what if I said 4 * x = 16, what would you say then?

Posted from TSR Mobile
0
#397
(Original post by majmuh24)
This actually hurts me to read, and anyway, how would you go about actually proving 44=16 ( and don't go dividing by zero, I don't care about what rules there are in your made up maths, that doesn't work)

Also, when two letters are together it means multiply, what if I said 4 * x = 16, what would you say then?

Posted from TSR Mobile
4*x=16 x=4 4*4=16 effectively by saying when two letters together they multiply must mean that 44 can equal 16 if we use the notation ab=a*b 44=4*4=16 usually ab=10a+b 44=40+4=44
but looking at lateral solutions this isn't always the case if we use the algebraic algorithm(a*b=ab).
Symbols is effectively the Science of Notation-investigation how symbols affect expressions and looking for lateral solutions by applying rules of notation in usual circumstances.
0
5 years ago
#398
Seriously Dalek, give it up. It's not maths because it doesn't follow the axioms of mathematics. You're STILL making a fool of yourself. All the time you're using to develop these SY modules could actually be put towards your studies.
0
5 years ago
#399
(Original post by Dalek1099)
4*x=16 x=4 4*4=16 effectively by saying when two letters together they multiply must mean that 44 can equal 16 if we use the notation ab=a*b 44=4*4=16 usually ab=10a+b 44=40+4=44
but looking at lateral solutions this isn't always the case if we use the algebraic algorithm(a*b=ab).
Symbols is effectively the Science of Notation-investigation how symbols affect expressions and looking for lateral solutions by applying rules of notation in usual circumstances.
It sounds like you're just throwing around complicated words for the sake of it without actually knowing what any of them mean, try watching this

Also, space out your paragraphs properly, it makes then a nightmare to read.

Posted from TSR Mobile
0
5 years ago
#400
Just read those papers, I don't think I've ever seen anything so mundane in my entire life. 10/10
0
X
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

### Oops, nobody has postedin the last few hours.

Why not re-start the conversation?

see more

### See more of what you like onThe Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

### Poll

Join the discussion

Yes (73)
23.93%
No (232)
76.07%