# A little math problem...



## Lord Voldemort (May 6, 2009)

I'm in PreCalculus (as a freshman in high school) at the University of Minnesota, and it's a bit more advanced than schools, so we do have some complex math, but this doesn't seem like it would make sense. anyway, here it is:

Prove by induction

The complex conjugate of the binomial expansion of the harmonic hyperbolic inverse in the partial fraction decomposition for the 18 real factors of the Fundamental Theorem of Signs is equivalent to the Gaussian reduction of the directrix of a nonlinear system exponated across an asymmetric DeMoiyrean polar vector field. Be sure to clearly state the equivalences for 2-cycle occurrences of the trisection of the Maclaurin fixed points as well as the natural logarithmic contraction of compounded interest.

I'm pretty convinced that he just threw every term we covered as well as some other random terms and made it into a problem for the amusement of seeing us struggle. But just out of interest, could anyone good at math perhaps view this and see if it actually makes sense (no need for a poof, unless you want to )


----------



## deco122392 (May 6, 2009)

hahahaha...huhhhh hmmmmmmmmmmm this belongs in an fml post i think... the majority of people wouldn't understand this and i'm still learning some of this stuff soo i'm sorry, but I cant help you.


----------



## shelley (May 6, 2009)

It's been a while since I've taken math, but even if that does make mathematical sense, I'm pretty sure it's not something you're supposed to be able to do at the pre-calculus level.


----------



## gpt_kibutz (May 6, 2009)

WTF? Is that pre-Calculus?... How old are you?


----------



## watermelon (May 6, 2009)

What is a "DeMoiyrean polar vector field"? The "Fundamental Theorem of Signs"?

Google doesn't seem to know either.


----------



## qqwref (May 6, 2009)

It's nonsense


----------



## Lord Voldemort (May 6, 2009)

So, that does indeed actually make sense?

I don't think this is Pre-Calc. I recognize most of the terms, but I don't understand what it's asking. I'm 15, but as I said I go the the University of Minnesota and take math there, so I'm ahead of most people my age (the honors program at my school for freshman is geometry). Obviously it's expected to be more difficult, but this seems like a joke.

@ Watermelon - I think the fundamental rule of signs is DeCartes's rule of signs.
@ qqwref - As I suspected. The professor is a funny guy, so this isn't out of ordinary. Giving this on the review sheet as a bonus question was kind of amusing.


----------



## gpt_kibutz (May 7, 2009)

I don't think that is a problem or that it makes any sense at all...


----------



## watermelon (May 7, 2009)

qqwref said:


> It's nonsense



Agreed. This problem makes no sense whatsoever.


----------



## gpt_kibutz (May 7, 2009)

Why don't you post another problem of your review sheet?  (so we can amuse a little bit)


----------



## Lord Voldemort (May 7, 2009)

lol, everything else was straightforward.
Probably the hardest thing was polar graphing (haven't done it in a while) and matrices (so easy to mess them up....)


----------



## gpt_kibutz (May 7, 2009)

Haha I really hate matrices... (I have math exam tomorrow :S Damn swine flu)


----------



## Lord Voldemort (May 7, 2009)

So do I (on both counts).
This is the final test of the year, though, and then I'm done with high school math!


----------



## gpt_kibutz (May 7, 2009)

Hey me too!!!  im done with high school math!!!!


----------



## Durandal4 (May 7, 2009)

I think this might be a joke, with a bunch of random names in it. Gaussian is more commonly referred to when talking about curves (gaussian distribution). Gaussian distribution is a normal curve that is symmetric. Maclaurin is more commonly know with series, centered at (x=0). And I would not know why someone would use inverse of partial fractions, because partial fractions is a method to integrate. I had to take an AP calc BC test and some of these terms were on it, but not in the context of your teacher.


----------



## ThatGuy (May 7, 2009)

Awesome teacher. Not all of it is completely random stuff. But you're not planning to take AP Calc?


----------



## brunson (May 7, 2009)

The question is clearly BS. 

Proof by mathematical induction goes like this: Show the premise hold for x, then solve for x + 1.


----------



## Ellis (May 7, 2009)

After a little bit of work, I think I've solved it-



Spoiler



42


----------



## jacob15728 (May 7, 2009)

I know how to do calculus and solve differential equations and I have no clue what the hell you're talking about.


----------



## Lord Voldemort (May 7, 2009)

ThatGuy said:


> Awesome teacher. Not all of it is completely random stuff. But you're not planning to take AP Calc?



Well, I take classes at the University, so I automatically get college and high school credit for passing the class. I'm in a different system is all. It goes like this: year one: Algebra 1 and 2, year two: Geometry and PreCalc, year three-five - various types of Calculus.



brunson said:


> The question is clearly BS.
> 
> Proof by mathematical induction goes like this: Show the premise hold for x, then solve for x + 1.



Yay for mathematical induction!



Ellis said:


> After a little bit of work, I think I've solved it-
> 
> 
> 
> ...



That's exactly what I was thinking when I first saw the question.
Then I realized that i had to prove it's 42


----------



## ThatGuy (May 7, 2009)

idk. the first thing i thought was >9000. lql


----------



## qqwref (May 7, 2009)

The question is a "prove X is true" one and you answer with a number. Nice job failing, guys.


----------



## JBCM627 (May 7, 2009)

Lord Voldemort said:


> Ellis said:
> 
> 
> > After a little bit of work, I think I've solved it-
> ...


Well, just cite the proof, since its already been done.


----------



## EmersonHerrmann (May 7, 2009)

This is me, an 8th grader in algebra speaking:

Wut?


----------



## JBCM627 (May 7, 2009)

Well, because you asked, and because I can't tell if qq is actually being serious or not:
[spoiler]


----------



## dougbenham (May 7, 2009)

well i was curious and did some searching as i am also in pre-calc.. i looked up maclaurin trisectrix on wolfram (http://mathworld.wolfram.com/MaclaurinTrisectrix.html) and they said "The Maclaurin trisectrix is a curve first studied by Colin Maclaurin in 1742. It was studied to provide a solution to one of the geometric problems of antiquity, in particular angle trisection, whence the name trisectrix. The Maclaurin trisectrix is an anallagmatic curve, and the origin is a crunode."

After I read that, I closed it and I am never to open again haha. You are doing impossible math lolz.


----------



## qqwref (May 7, 2009)

JBCM627 said:


> Well, because you asked, and because I can't tell if qq is actually being serious or not:
> [spoiler]



Oh, I know what 42 is. No number, whether it be e, pi, 17, 42, 1337, 9001, 43252003274489855999, or anything else, is awesome enough that giving it as an answer to a "prove X" question does not count as fail. Sorry guys, it just looks dumb; save it for math questions that ask for a number.


----------



## Ellis (May 7, 2009)

qqwref said:


> JBCM627 said:
> 
> 
> > Well, because you asked, and because I can't tell if qq is actually being serious or not:
> ...



You just took that way too seriously. You said yourself it was a nonsense, so what's the problem with an answer that is equally nonsensical? Besides, the answer to life the universe and everything isn't a question which would yield a number anyway, that's why 42 is a silly generic answer.


----------



## qqwref (May 7, 2009)

Ellis said:


> You just took that way too seriously. You said yourself it was a nonsense, so what's the problem with an answer that is equally nonsensical? Besides, the answer to life the universe and everything isn't a question which would yield a number anyway, that's why 42 is a silly generic answer.



...but you don't even know the question 

Anyway my point was that if someone asks you to prove something (even if the question doesn't make sense) there are MUCH more creative and funny fake answers than just giving a number. That's only funny because it's surrealist; you might as well answer "potato". Oh wait, that's funnier than 42.


----------



## Ellis (May 7, 2009)

damn, that is funnier... I should've said potato 



qqwref said:


> Anyway my point was that if someone asks you to prove something [...]


Well, the problem is I didn't really see anything that said "prove X" or something to the same extent. I saw a confusing statement, and then a "Be sure to clearly..." I didn't really see it asking anything, let alone to prove something.

Edit- oh my god, I see that now. I didn't even see the "prove by induction" before. damn... honestly, I probably wouldn't have have even said 42 if I had seen that. That is kind of lame.


----------



## guusrs (May 7, 2009)

I studied math >20years ago.
Don't know all the terms anymore. But it is really a joke!
When stripping down it says:

"Prove by induction that the complex conjugate of.... is equivalent to the Gaussian reduction of.... "

A complex conjugate can't be equivalent to a Gaussion reduction!

And if you ask for a prove (which is actually not a mathematical problem but a reduction of complexity to make it understandable for other persons) you never ask "Be sure....".

qed.

Gus


----------



## Bryan (May 7, 2009)

I won't give you the whole thing, but here's the start of the proof (spoilerized:

Chewbacca is a wookie that lives on the planet Endor.


----------



## badmephisto (May 8, 2009)

Lord Voldemort said:


> The complex conjugate of the binomial expansion of the harmonic hyperbolic inverse in the partial fraction decomposition for the 18 real factors of the Fundamental Theorem of Signs is equivalent to the Gaussian reduction of the directrix of a nonlinear system exponated across an asymmetric DeMoiyrean polar vector field. Be sure to clearly state the equivalences for 2-cycle occurrences of the trisection of the Maclaurin fixed points as well as the natural logarithmic contraction of compounded interest.



haha this is amusing  Its complete nonsense of course, and you don't need to be too advanced to see that the question doesn't make too much sense. Its asking if the complex conjugate of (random stuff) is equivalent to a Gaussian reduction of (random stuff). Gaussian reduction, any freshman in Linear Algebra knows, is just a method of solving a linear system of equations. How can a method for doing something be equivalent to complex conjugate of something? The complex conjugate is a complex number... In what sense could these two entities be equivalent? Its just nonsense. pretty funny though

*edit:*
change the sentence to 
"Prove by induction that FINDING the complex conjugate of...."
the solution sets of the two problems could then be somehow trivially isomorphic (i.e. there is a simple relationship) and then you can talk about equivalence in some sense, because doing one gives you the other.
then I would shut up, scowl, and leave the thread alone


----------



## Lord Voldemort (May 9, 2009)

Yay I just took a my last Pre-Calculus test!
And I think I did pretty well, too.

The thing is, I won't be doing math again for like 4 and a half months...
Despite the fast that I don't seem to like math when I'm actually being forced to do it, I actually realize now that I somewhat enjoyed it. It is indeed the subject I am best at. So I began thinking: why not introduce myself to a bit of Calculus over the time I have until summer (one and a half months)? I'll get ahead slightly, and I'll understand the concepts a bit easier when the time comes. 

So, for those of you that have done calculus, what do you think? Is Calculus sufficiently difficult that I will need to have an instructor (note that I'm used to meeting for math class only once a week, so this won't be too different)?


----------



## brunson (May 9, 2009)

Calculus is not that hard. I'd suggest Schaum's for independent study. Post back here if you get stuck, there's plenty of help to be had.


----------



## Lord Voldemort (May 9, 2009)

That does look pretty useful. 
Why's it so cheap compared to most textbooks?
(Whoa! Textbooks do cost a lot. I looked up my precalc book an amazon, and apparently the U of M payed like $50 towards the textbook for us. They are buying in bulk though.)


Is everything in there covered in one year of college calculus?
(This one: http://www.mhprofessional.com/product.php?isbn=0071635351)


----------



## jacob15728 (May 9, 2009)

Lord Voldemort said:


> Yay I just took a my last Pre-Calculus test!
> And I think I did pretty well, too.
> 
> The thing is, I won't be doing math again for like 4 and a half months...
> ...



I taught myself differential calculus and basic integral and differential equations from a book and I'm 15. The basic stuff is quite easy. I can't say the same for the more advanced concepts though, I didn't really understand it very well.


----------



## Lord Voldemort (May 9, 2009)

Yay, I'm 15 as well 
Did you look online, or did you have some sort of book?


----------



## jacob15728 (May 9, 2009)

Lord Voldemort said:


> Yay, I'm 15 as well
> Did you look online, or did you have some sort of book?



I used my dad's old college textbooks called Calculus and Analytic Geomtery, but you might have more luck with something newer.


----------



## gpt_kibutz (May 9, 2009)

I really suggest you to start with Calculus. It is very easy and straightforward.
If you have any doubt we can help


----------



## Nilxchaos (May 9, 2009)

Darn. Ellis beat me to it. 
Or you could be an overachiever and say 43. ^^ 
And it is only a bonus question, just write 42 and don't give an explanation. No lost points. 

And good for you as a freshmen taking Pre-Cal, I just took Algebra 2 as a freshman. So I am a bit behind you. Try Algebra-based Physics if it is offered. It is very hard, but extremely worth it if you have the right teacher.


----------



## Logan (May 9, 2009)

I'm pretty good at math [currently in geometry in 7th grade in Hastings MN (double or triple HP i think)] but I have NO idea what that says. I will in 2 or 3 years though


----------

