Click to expand
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
#37 - dirtybadger has deleted their comment [-]
#50 to #37 - fuckedbyapony (02/26/2013) [-]
No because a^3 is not relative to b^3 or c^3 here because the depth of the cylinders is the same for all 3 and not just relative to a b or c
You have to think of it as a(b or c)^2 with a depth of (example) 3cm each
User avatar #49 to #37 - mullacllahdoow ONLINE (02/26/2013) [-]
You just stumbled, completely by accident, onto one of the biggest stories in recent mathematical history. If you care enough google "fermats last theorem" and check out the wiki page.
#52 to #49 - fuckedbyapony (02/26/2013) [-]
I see this is quite interesting as most people would assume it could be done somehow
Has someone really tried this with every number combination possible?
User avatar #55 to #52 - mullacllahdoow ONLINE (02/26/2013) [-]
No, that would be impossible as numbers don't have an end, i.e. if you give me a number I can always give a bigger one.
But number theory proofs tend to be iterative rather than exhaustive i.e. if we can prove it works for 1 then prove it works for n+1 then it must work for 1+1 and thus as it works for 2 also works for 2+1 etc etc.
If you're really interested there's a book called "Fermat's Last Theorem" by Simon Singh that doesn't require any mathematical knowledge to understand as it's more of a biography of Andrew Wiles life when he was working on the proof and a bit of history thrown in.
I'm a Math student at Uni and to me a problem that nobody could solve from 1637 till 1995 fascinates me.
#57 to #55 - fuckedbyapony (02/26/2013) [-]
Yeah I suppose so but wasn't the largest number supposed to be grahams number or something but i never got it because you could just add anything to grahams number
User avatar #60 to #57 - mullacllahdoow ONLINE (02/26/2013) [-]
grahams number is the largest number with a use, it is very large, there are less particles in the known universe but it broke the record for largest number when it was used for a proof in some part of ramsey theory I think... not 100% on that but I bet Wiki would know =)
#41 to #37 - anon (02/26/2013) [-]
That would be ha^2 + hb^2 = hc^2 , where h - depth of containers.
User avatar #42 to #41 - dirtybadger (02/26/2013) [-]
i was just putting it in those terms because volume is normally measured in cubic length
User avatar #38 to #37 - riylshadow (02/26/2013) [-]
You do realize that those are the same thing right?
User avatar #40 to #38 - dirtybadger (02/26/2013) [-]
can't even begin to explain how wrong you are
User avatar #47 to #40 - riylshadow (02/26/2013) [-]
Yeah i'm not good at math, I should learn to shut my mouth.
#43 to #40 - anon (02/26/2013) [-]
H is a constant because its not relative to anything in the equation its simply a value that one person said "hey that's a cool number lets use that." because you can change H and nothing will happen as long as its constant from all 3 containers. if H changed from side to side to be relative to a/b/c then this would NOT work.
#39 to #38 - baldrian **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
 Friends (0)