I find this meme and this comment section distressing. Y’all are bad at basic algebra.

Carry on, I guess.

Do enlighten us.

Subtract

`x`

from both sides of the equation. You get`2 = -2`

which is incorrect and nonsensical.I know that, but @Urist@lemmy.blahaj.zone said that most of us here are bad at basic algebra. Not that I’m great at it (I had an 8 average in all 4 maths in uni), but I do believe that most of us here were correct. This is unsolvable using classic algebra.

Just to be clear: the comment was meant in a lighthearted way and not meant to be taken personally, especially toward those who are confident with their math skills.

My bad.

Apology accepted 😊.

To be honest, my comment was meant to have double meaning. On one hand, I was certain that this thing can’t be solved with classic algebra. On the other, it’s been a while since I’ve done any math with pen and paper, so I figured “I might have forgotten something that could make this solvable”. In either case, I was curious 😂.

**x**+ 2 =**x**- 2I found x, twice even. EZ

That is probably the most correct answer.

Would it be a rabbit hole to try and find any merit in this solution when interpreting it as: “if x is in a superposition of 2 and -2, the

`x + 2 = x - 2`

would be true in 1/4 of the observations”, or something like that?It is the closest thing to a “solution” that I can imagine, but doesn’t fit any laws that I know of or understand, and would probably break down on any scrutiny, but it feels like something is there.

x cant be both values at the same time, not under what most people consider to be math. Feel free to write your own logical system and see where that takes you, though.

I think the only “solution” that works is addition/subtraction under mod 4 (or mod 2 I suppose) like another poster suggested. Then we’d have:

X + 2 = x - 2

X + 4 = x (Add 2 to both sides)

X + 0 = x (4 = 0 mod 4)

X = x (True for all x)

(True for all x)

But not true for any rational number if you try it in the equation.

Thus, this is not a solution. The equation is unsolvable with rational numbers.

Correct, not solvable with rational numbers. I should have been more clear. When we’re doing arithmetic modulo x, it’s assumed to be with integers.

To be clear, this is a solution only in Z_4 which is not what most people mean when they’re look for answers to algebra problems. And it would be a solution for all x in Z_4 (which are integers, see this page that I assume is a good summary)

Yes, that is correct, this is solvable in modular algebra… but, in that case, the tripple horizontal line equal sign should have been used, not the double horizontal line one, which of course indicates classic algebra.

Also true but I’m not sure how to do that on my phone so I gave up

Maybe lemmy can do mathjax someday

I was talking about the person that posted the equation. They should have found a way if they wanted this thing solved, lol 😂.

Don’t overthink it, it’s made to be unsolvable on purpose, just to test how much math your average Joe knows.

Haha I got that :) @Urist@lemmy.blahaj.zone is right, I was halfheartedly looking for a logic system in which it

*could*make sense. Still, I would have major issues with the first step as it is shown, but I am wondering about systems where, say, each`x <- {..}`

, then what would be the set, and the probability of the correct solution.Something I need to be more awake for, and it may be easier to solve without resorting to powers and roots, haha.

Reply to self: really not that useful. That would be the same as just throwing all variables/coordinates of the solution in a set, forgetting their names and then filling them back in as some kind of madlibs experiment. And multiple solutions don’t grow with the exponent on x, that is just an odd/even thing. Don’t know shat I was thinking…

I can tell you one thing, the equation makes perfect sense if x --> inf.

2 = -2, easy

Clearly X= |2> + |-2> 😅

⬆️ this poster didn’t normalize their linear combination of wave functions

x = ∞

Probably more correct than that.