as a teacher of math...I was pwned

[Cheesypuff]

I can't believe I got pwned by my students on this question.

1 = 5
2 = 25
3 = 125
4 = 625
5 = ?























5 = 1



damn!!!! I was like...5 = 3125. they were like...nope...wrong. the answer is ONE. then I argued with them for a few seconds...and it hit me....CRAP!!! I was just pwned!!!!:disa:

stupid students...

[brainsmile]

ha ha ha...too funny

[RoniMan]

lol...i actually give that to my math students.

[Burzhui]

yea i fell for it :)

[DarkFury]

I can't believe I got pwned by my students on this question.

1 = 5
2 = 25
3 = 125
4 = 625
5 = ?



5 = 1



damn!!!! I was like...5 = 3125. they were like...nope...wrong. the answer is ONE. then I argued with them for a few seconds...and it hit me....CRAP!!! I was just pwned!!!!:disa:

stupid students...
Technically, both of y'all got pwned with those equations...

Since you didn't include any variables (such as 1x = 5 and so on) then we already know that 1 does not equal 5, but 1 = 1. :D

[gwilks98]

Technically, both of y'all got pwned with those equations...

Since you didn't include any variables (such as 1x = 5 and so on) then we already know that 1 does not equal 5, but 1 = 1. :D


Lay off him, he teaches at a public skewl.


j/k :D

[jstreet]

I'm not following :o

[ShawnLee]

I'm not following :o
Leave it alone law wannabe. Just back off slowly.

[jstreet]

LOL, true enough ;)

Is it supposed to be that because 1=5, 5=1? Is that the point?

[ryan_self]

Technically, both of y'all got pwned with those equations...

Since you didn't include any variables (such as 1x = 5 and so on) then we already know that 1 does not equal 5, but 1 = 1. :D


:stupid:

[bachviet]

I felt for it too. :laugh:

[Airencracken]

I'm either super smart or super dumb. I said one. :D

[MrGreg]

I believe 3125 is the best answer, and here is why.

In this case, the symbol "=" represents some function. The function "=" represents in this case clearly is NOT the equality function we all know and love because 1=5 is false with our normal definition. So here "=" means something other than what we are use to.

Now that we've thrown away our preconceived notion of what "=" means, lets look at the evidence we have:

1 = 5
2 = 25
3 = 125
4 = 625

If we want to disambiguate with the common definition of "=", we could rewrite the know facts like this:

f(1):5
f(2):25
f(3):125
f(4):625

We have absolutely no evidence that our new function is symmetric about the line y=-x. (That is we don't know that f(x):y ==> f(y):x) Our old definition of "=" has this property, but we don't know that's the case for this new function.

So we have no reason to believe f(5):1, or 5=1.

We do have 4 data points that suggest f(x):5^x, though. The most reasonable thing to extrapolate, therefore, is that f(5):3125, or 5=3125.




* I realize this whole thing is meant as a joke, but I couldn't resist.

[Burzhui]

foking nerds

[RoniMan]

LOL, true enough ;)

Is it supposed to be that because 1=5, 5=1? Is that the point?

yes.

lawyer huh.....?

:P i keed i keed

[Thesifer]

I believe 3125 is the best answer, and here is why.

In this case, the symbol "=" represents some function. The function "=" represents in this case clearly is NOT the equality function we all know and love because 1=5 is false with our normal definition. So here "=" means something other than what we are use to.

Now that we've thrown away our preconceived notion of what "=" means, lets look at the evidence we have:

1 = 5
2 = 25
3 = 125
4 = 625

If we want to disambiguate with the common definition of "=", we could rewrite the know facts like this:

f(1):5
f(2):25
f(3):125
f(4):625

We have absolutely no evidence that our new function is symmetric about the line y=-x. (That is we don't know that f(x):y ==> f(y):x) Our old definition of "=" has this property, but we don't know that's the case for this new function.

So we have no reason to believe f(5):1, or 5=1.

We do have 4 data points that suggest f(x):5^x, though. The most reasonable thing to extrapolate, therefore, is that f(5):3125, or 5=3125.




* I realize this whole thing is meant as a joke, but I couldn't resist.

:stupid:

[Napoleon54]

*snip*
...we have no reason to believe f(5):1, or 5=1.

We do have 4 data points that suggest f(x):5^x, though. The most reasonable thing to extrapolate, therefore, is that f(5):3125, or 5=3125.

Wow, very impressive. I thought something was funny about assuming 1=5 ergo 5=1 in this case, but I never would've been able to explain it the way you just did. :bow:

[johnnymk]

There is nothing to indicate that there is a sequence going on, so 5 does equal 1.

Just like 25 equals 2, 125 equals 3 and 625 equals 4.

If any other number had come up, it would have been irrelevant.

[Napoleon54]

So then why doesn't 5=5?

[Jeffbx]

In the expression, the numbers are being treated as both a value & a variable. Therefore I'd argue that both are correct -

5=1 based on the trasitive, given that 1=5; AND 5=3125 based on the progression of the prior values.

However, I guess it all boils down to the fact that it's a funny joke to play on your math teacher and we've now ruined it by analyzing it to death.

[MrGreg]

There is nothing to indicate that there is a sequence going on, so 5 does equal 1.

Nothing I said depends on it being a sequence. In fact I would argue that's another reason why 3125 is a better solution. You could just as easily answer 6=? or 28734=?



Just like 25 equals 2, 125 equals 3 and 625 equals 4.


5=1 based on the trasitive

You're both assuming the transitive property applies, but that assumption is without basis in this case.


Now if the question had been:

a = e
b = f
c = g
d = h
e = ?

We would think the "=" here is the standard equality operator, which does have the transitive property. And therefor e = a.

So I guess if you treat the set of numbers {1,2,3,4,5,25,125,625} as variable names, then fine, 5=1. But if I was teaching math and my students named variables after integers, there would be a lot of red pen marks on their returned homework.

[InfiniteNothing]

I can't believe I got pwned by my students on this question.

1 = 5
2 = 25
3 = 125
4 = 625
5 = ?


5= 1 + 4 = 630

[RoniMan]

However, I guess it all boils down to the fact that it's a funny joke to play on your math teacher and we've now ruined it by analyzing it to death.
:agree:

[Napoleon54]

Stop it, stop it! You're all gonna give me a brain hernia.

[jaja]

5 fingers = 1 hand

[Cheesypuff]

wow...you guys rocked up with the explanations...

[Houdini]

5= 1 + 4 = 630

After reading it twice, that's what I was thinking as well.

As said above, it all depends on what is the agreed meaning of "=" and if a transitive property can be assigned to it.

Otherwise, it's an interesting paradox. Not quite a paradox, but kinda paradoxy.