PDA

View Full Version : as a teacher of math...I was pwned

Cheesypuff
11-03-2006, 01:55 AM
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
11-03-2006, 01:58 AM
ha ha ha...too funny

RoniMan
11-03-2006, 05:51 AM
lol...i actually give that to my math students.

Burzhui
11-03-2006, 09:02 AM
yea i fell for it :)

DarkFury
11-03-2006, 09:47 AM
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
11-03-2006, 09:51 AM
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
11-03-2006, 10:04 AM
I'm not following :o

ShawnLee
11-03-2006, 10:31 AM
I'm not following :o
Leave it alone law wannabe. Just back off slowly.

jstreet
11-03-2006, 10:35 AM
LOL, true enough ;)

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

ryan_self
11-03-2006, 10:45 AM
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
11-03-2006, 11:20 AM
I felt for it too. :laugh:

Airencracken
11-03-2006, 12:02 PM
I'm either super smart or super dumb. I said one. :D

MrGreg
11-03-2006, 02:27 PM
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
11-03-2006, 03:53 PM
foking nerds

RoniMan
11-03-2006, 04:00 PM
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
11-03-2006, 04:05 PM
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
11-03-2006, 04:14 PM
*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
11-03-2006, 04:17 PM
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
11-03-2006, 04:29 PM
So then why doesn't 5=5?

Jeffbx
11-03-2006, 04:37 PM
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
11-03-2006, 05:46 PM
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
11-03-2006, 05:55 PM
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
11-03-2006, 06:23 PM
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
11-03-2006, 06:29 PM
Stop it, stop it! You're all gonna give me a brain hernia.

jaja
11-03-2006, 07:14 PM
5 fingers = 1 hand

Cheesypuff
11-03-2006, 09:43 PM
wow...you guys rocked up with the explanations...

Houdini
11-04-2006, 02:05 AM
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.