Simple Arithmetic!

[ewmayer]

{Awaits long-winded condescending reply to fetofs about his "anger management issues", along with the usual Opium-like haze of bizarre argumentation, random-anecdote-hopping, and bible-misquoting...}

Originally Posted by mfgoode

My Bronze medal for mathematics when I was 19 yrs speaks for itself.

Let's hope that it, at least, knows what a square root is.

Anyway, Mally, your ol' Bronze medal has been rather silent of late -- I'm guessing it's out of embarassment at what its owner is doing these days.

(I don't suppose they have regular relicensing examinations for those like they do for medical practitioners? No? Well, it was worth a shot.)

[DJones]

Originally Posted by mfgoode

Yes I humbly admit I made a mistake in presenting my problem. This is due to my lack of expertise in lexicography if there is such a word ( Xilman I look forward to a correction if it is not) and not my malicious intentions of deliberately misleading anyone.

I would accept a simple typing error as an excuse, were it not for the fact that you also made an error in your clarification (see davieddy's post) of the problem which can't be attributed to typing ability.

Originally Posted by mfgoode

The motive you have given of me massaging my ego is not true. At my age there is no need for it as I have put my best years behind and all my achievements too.

I have given you no such motive. I said that I would not judge anyone harshly if they did apply this motive to you.

Originally Posted by mfgoode

Wait a minute I am tight lipped about this and can only say time will tell when I will require derogatory posts like yours to quote of the great opposition I have met from people like you who would like me to get the harsh treatment/ punishment I deserve.

I oppose anyone who continuously and persistently makes significant errors and then goes on to blame others for being incapable of understanding the supposed nuances of the problem instead of admitting their mistake. You have made such an admission on this occasion but it is, in my experience at least, a first.

Originally Posted by mfgoode

It looks like you are getting sleepless nights over my posts. But I have a knock out punch left in me yet.

No sleepless nights here; fools and their issues do not keep me awake.

Originally Posted by mfgoode

Out of the three points you have given I have to disappoint you on your very first.

Presumptuous of you; no disappointment here, I merely stated that you have three logical options. I neither care nor hope about which one you choose.

Originally Posted by mfgoode

The other two are reasonable and I will try to take your advice. I can accept when they are wrong but not nonsensical as you say.

When the specification of the problem contradicts the answer, then it's nonsense.

Originally Posted by mfgoode

And please dont belittle compilers of problems.

I have never belittled compilers of problems. I am one, albeit crosswords rather than anything mathematical. Given that the majority of your problems are vague and the majority of the answers do not follow logically from the question, I do challenge your assumption that you could in any way be classed in the set "compilers of problems".

Originally Posted by mfgoode

They lead to solutions not intended by the originators. That's how knowledge mushrooms. History is replete with examples.

Shame this isn't one of those examples. Your problem and contradictory solution has not led to an expanding of knowledge, it has merely caused confusion as so many of your poorly-constructed problems do.

Originally Posted by mfgoode

And here is my knock out punch.
You strained as if a gnat at the problem and did find the mistake why didnt you correct it there and then?

Strained? Hardly. A gnat? Ah, having been caught by your own incompetence you resort to name-calling. How very childish of you. As for why I did not correct your error, I did. As you yourself said;

Originally Posted by mfgoode

Yes DJones you appear like a phantom and read and digest my post and are able to quote me twice and write a long windy post all in 20 mins flat.

The error was only revealed for certain in the post in which you revealed the 'answer'. Up until that point, I was giving you the benefit of the doubt.

Originally Posted by mfgoode

Please open your God given eyes and see there are two answers YES OR NO.

True, but irrelevant. Even with a fifty-fifty chance of being right you managed to get the answer to your own question wrong. That you have done this repeatedly is the issue, not how many possible answers there are.

Originally Posted by mfgoode

If you were so sure why didnt you answer NO? Why didnt you have the bloody guts (slang) to say so in the beginning? You could very well have boldly refuted it instead of riding at the back of the caravan all the while and then appearing at the front to lay hold of the harness of the leaders of the pack horses? WHY! WHY! WHY?
one two three.................. nine ten! You're counted out!

Ignoring the pathetic boxing metaphor in which you consider yourself to be my opponent *and* the referee (an obvious parallel to setting yourself up as judge, jury, and executioner), I didn't reply to this thread sooner as I have only recently come back from holiday.

Originally Posted by mfgoode

DJones this is not the end fellah. I'll catch up with you on another encounter but I have already been so by you, once bitten twice shy and the third time I bite!

Your threat, and I use the word loosely, would carry more weight if you had previously shown any signs of ability or competence.

Originally Posted by mfgoode

Or better still give us one of your problems as an error free one as an example?

So that you can flood the thread with posts raising pointless objections and requesting irrelevant clarifications? I don't think I'll waste my time rising to your obvious attempt at baiting me.

Originally Posted by mfgoode

Well all the best to you. May you go in peace and please dont quarrel with your wife over my problem now will you?

Ah, some gibberish to close with. Oh, as a final point, you seem to have a tendency to make unfounded assumptions. You have referred to me as "fellah" and made allusions to me having a wife. Why do you assume that I am a) male and b) married?

*EDIT* Oh, and apologies to fetofs for a long-winded post.

[Orgasmic Troll]

...aaaaaaand with that Mally goes back on ignore.

[ewmayer]

Originally Posted by Orgasmic Troll

...aaaaaaand with that Mally goes back on ignore.

Would you like some suitably derisive rap lyrics to go with that, Mr. Ayatollah-of-rock-and-rollah, Sir?

While I blather on
A mile a minute,
My cranky score
Remains infinite.

Ah huh, ah yuh, ba dee doom dah.

(It works better with my homies dropping trou, making obscure faux-ASL hand signals and flashing the bling-bling in the background - but you'll have to buy the video for that, homes. Yo, peace out)

[retina]

2*(2/3)=8/3 <--- nonsense of the highest degree!

[fetofs]

Originally Posted by DJones

*EDIT* Oh, and apologies to fetofs for a long-winded post.

Actually, I meant it as a message so Mally won't try to convince me or use some kind of crazy argument. As yours wasn't a direct reply to my post, I can let it go with a warning

P.S: Oh, and I know it had to be replies, but I wrote it in a hurry.

[akruppa]

This is the first time I have ever seen anyone claim that

2*(2/3)

should be read as the mixed fraction 2+2/3. The equation, as originally posted and later confirmed, is plain simply wrong.

Alex

[fetofs]

Have you guys read the text between mfgoode and his avatar? Our admin is joking, for a change

[davieddy]

Originally Posted by akruppa

This is the first time I have ever seen anyone claim that

should be read as the mixed fraction 2+2/3. The equation, as originally posted and later confirmed, is plain simply wrong.

Alex

I'm starting to feel mildly sorry for Mally:
some of us tried several bizarre interpretations of his
clumsy notation to make the equation true, but this
was too far out for us.

2*SQR(2/3) = SQR(2+2/3) is mildly entertaining
(in the same way as the four fours thread seems to amuse).
Perhaps it was originally framed as a brain-teaser which Mally
contrived to mangle.

The whole sorry affair merely shows that mixed fractions
are not well suited for use in formulae.

David

[axn]

Originally Posted by Orgasmic Troll

so you're claiming that ?

Once you remove the parentheses, you can see where mally was going with it. I think this was how the problem was meant to be stated.

[Orgasmic Troll]

Originally Posted by axn1

Once you remove the parentheses, you can see where mally was going with it. I think this was how the problem was meant to be stated.

The funny thing is that I used parentheses to avoid notation and at one point it crossed my mind that Mally might have meant something about improper fractions, but I did a quick and dirty (too quick and too dirty, since it was wrong) check and didn't think it worked out