ProofWiki talk:Jokes

Sufficiently Large
$1+1 = 3$, for sufficiently large values of $1$.

You have to stipulate "where $3 \ne 0$" or else the equation won't hold. --GFauxPas 22:30, 5 November 2011 (CDT)


 * No you don't. It's more subtle than that.


 * $1.3 + 1.3 = 2.6$
 * Rounding to the nearest integer:
 * $1 + 1 = 3$


 * I hate it when I need to explain my jokes. It means it's not a good joke :-( --prime mover 03:08, 6 November 2011 (CST)

Lightbulbs
That's 2 lightbulb jokes - are we going to need to start a subsection? --prime mover 17:05, 30 March 2012 (EDT)


 * Q: How many wikipedians does it take to change a lightbulb? A: (answer removed pending resolution of copyright claims) --GFauxPas 18:19, 30 March 2012 (EDT)


 * A: Doesn't matter, no point changing it in the first place because someone claiming to be an admin will only change it back again. --prime mover 18:23, 30 March 2012 (EDT)

Beerlogical
Yes, this is interesting stuff; I and some friends of mine tend to play such games when we're in the mood.

Also interesting is the 'beer witness theorem', saying that:


 * $\exists x: \left(B(x) \implies \forall y: B(y)\right)$

(i.e., there is a person such that if he is drinking beer, all people are). I recalled this example when contemplating the concerns of certain pioneers in logic that we shouldn't abstract to the infinite without any thought. This crops up as for a finite amount of people, it is the last person you are to ask (or the first that doesn't drink). Thought it'd be nice to give some more thoughts on this. --Lord_Farin 21:20, 5 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Instant intuitive response: isn't it directly derivable from the contrapositive to "if not everybody is drinking beer, then there exists a person who is not drinking beer"? (I'm not drinking beer. This needs to be corrected.) --prime mover 21:27, 5 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Nope. Compare $\neg \exists x :P$ and $\exists x: \neg P$; they are different. --Lord_Farin 22:40, 5 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Never mind ... --prime mover 06:28, 6 July 2012 (UTC)