# 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)

- I always thought this joke was subtler still -- a reference to analytic number theorists making entirely false statements true by appending "for sufficiently large x", making the mocking suggestion that they don't check anything properly, just add this all purpose phrase. And yes, I probably could have found a more helpful contribution to make to the wiki --Linus44 (talk) 16:58, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

## 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)

## Proof by Contradiction

I can now finally see where those intuitionistic mathematicians get their motivation from. --Lord_Farin (talk) 08:21, 24 September 2012 (UTC)