Pascal's Triangle, by Luther...

[Luther_Hull]

1
1 1
1 2 1
1 3 3 1
1 4 6 4 1
1 5 10 10 5 1
1 6 15 20 15 6 1
1 7 21 35 35 21 7 1
1 8 28 56 70 56 28 8 1
1 9 36 84 126 126 84 36 9 1
1 10 45 120 210 252 210 120 45 10 1​

For reference.

 

[HBK-aholic]

My head hurts.

 

[Jane]

N
NO
NOB
NOBO
NOBOD
NOBODY
NOBODYC
NOBODYCA
NOBODYCAR
NOBODYCARE
NOBODYCARES
​

Just kidding, Luther. I have no idea what Pascal's Triangle is.

 

[Mr. TM]

Genius.

 

[klunderbunker]

Very nicely done.

 

[Cena's Little Helper]

Now tell us about Pascal's Wager.

 

[Jane]

I Don't Get It!

 

[Father:_Polley]

I Don't Get It!

Pascal's triangle is an arrangement of numbers where the two numbers beside each other are added together to give another number on the row below

take row 2 for example - 1 1
Corresponds to 1 2 1

It's also useful for working out the numbers involved in quadratic equations.

(p+q)^4 = p^4 + 4(p^3)q + 6(p^2)(q^2) + 4(q^3)p + p^4

 

[Jane]

(p+q)^4 = p^4 + 4(p^3)q + 6(p^2)(q^2) + 4(q^3)p + p^4

Hm. That seems confusing.

But I get the triangle now.

 

[Jane]

So, if I start with 2...

2
2 2
2 4 2
2 6 6 2
2 8 12 8 2
2 10 20 20 10 2
2 12 30 40 30 12 2
2 14 42 70 70 42 14 2
2 16 56 122 140 122 56 16 2
2 18 72 178 262 262 178 72 18 2
2 20 90 250 440 524 440 250 90 20 2​

 

[Father:_Polley]

Pretty much. That's the idea

 

[Jane]

Very interesting

 

[Murfish]

What is Luth working on?

 

[Mr. TM]

is this his plan to rise to admin?

 

[Tastycles]

Now tell us about Pascal's Wager.

You can't prove God exists with logic, but you might as well assume he does. If you live a pious life and he doesn't exist, nothing ventured nothing gained. If you live a sinful life and he does exist, then you go to hell.

Of course, it is a ridiculous argument on so many levels, but ah well, at least he can draw number triangles.

 

[48.7 is Approximately 49 Times Better Than You]

Luther, can you make one equal two?

 

[Tastycles]

Luther, can you make one equal two?

I know I'm not Luther, but you're referring to this:

Let a=b

Then aa=ab {add aa to both sides}

aa+aa=aa+ab {factorise}

2aa=aa+ab {subtract 2ab from both sides}

2aa - 2ab = aa + ab - 2ab {simplify}

2aa - 2ab = aa - ab {factorise}

2(aa-ab) = 1(aa-ab) {divide both sides by (aa-ab)}

2=1

Q.E.D.


It is wrong because aa-ab = 0, so you cannot divide by it.

 

[48.7 is Approximately 49 Times Better Than You]

I've seen it done differently, in a much more clever way. It took me all of 45 seconds to find the error. I beat my math teacher.

 

[Tastycles]

I've seen it done differently, in a much more clever way. It took me all of 45 seconds to find the error. I beat my math teacher.

I have too, but I can't remember it. Someone in my friends philosophy class used the one above and said it categorically proved that maths was wrong.

 

[48.7 is Approximately 49 Times Better Than You]

But it isn't wrong. I wrote out something similar and convinced four people in 20 minutes that 1 = 2.

 

[Murfish]

*Slow clap*

My class got nad at me when I pointed out the error.

Did you see the proof that establishes every triangle as isosceles?

 

[Tastycles]

*Slow clap*

My class got nad at me when I pointed out the error.

Did you see the proof that establishes every triangle as isosceles?

Nope.

 

[Jane]

But it isn't wrong. I wrote out something similar and convinced four people in 20 minutes that 1 = 2.

1 and 2 are the same? What is this black magic?!?!?

 

[Murfish]

Nope.

I'm too lazy to type it up right now, but you should look it up.

 

[Tastycles]

I'm too lazy to type it up right now, but you should look it up.

I had a look, but I'mm too tired to process it.