[QUOTE=I0Play0Bass]What are a, d, x and n? I assume by X you mean "multiplied by?"

To my knowledge, no, it has not been discovered. I'll do some research and try it with rational and irrational numbers.

:thumb:

-Gav[/QUOTE]

a=the first number in the sequence
d=the common differance in the sequence
x=multiply
n=the term number that you are trying to figure out.

the formula is to try and find a certen number in a sequence, so lets say that you have a sequence of 3, 6, 9 and you want to know the 18th number in the sequence you take the formula like this. n=the 18th number a=3 d=3. so you do this. n=3+(3x18) and you get 57 as the answer.

lowsound

[QUOTE=irishslappop]WHERE!?[/QUOTE]
Wintermutes Bra, go!

^ I'll do research...let me try it with pi.

Do you need a minimum of two terms? Also, does it only work with addition, or with subtraction, multiplication, division, etc.?

:thumb:

-Gav

[QUOTE=Dieforitall89]Wintermutes Bra, go![/QUOTE]
oj jesus! i cant go alone who is joining me on this noble, dangerous task to recover the potatoes form the horrible bra of wintermute? will no one? are there none brave enough? common men! make haste with your decisions!

[QUOTE=I0Play0Bass]^ I'll do research...let me try it with pi.

Do you need a minimum of two terms? Also, does it only work with addition, or with subtraction, multiplication, division, etc.?

:thumb:

-Gav[/QUOTE]

only for arithmetic sequences, as in a sequence that goes 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, ect with the differance between number is constant, so adding or adding negitive number (subtracting)

lowsound

Have any of you ever had counseling?


Oh, I'm not afraid of Wintermute's bra.

[QUOTE=irishslappop]oj jesus! i cant go alone who is joining me on this noble, dangerous task to recover the potatoes form the horrible bra of wintermute? will no one? are there none brave enough? common men! make haste with your decisions![/QUOTE]
Me and my crew of imaginary pirates shall join, at the cost of your soul.

I'm tired. And hey...

[QUOTE=thelowsoundofbass]only for arithmetic sequences, as in a sequence that goes 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, ect with the differance between number is constant, so adding or adding negitive number (subtracting)

lowsound[/QUOTE]
i wonder if it works with trignometric funtions. or with double nad half angle formulas.

[QUOTE=irishslappop]oj jesus! i cant go alone who is joining me on this noble, dangerous task to recover the potatoes form the horrible bra of wintermute? will no one? are there none brave enough? common men! make haste with your decisions![/QUOTE]

im in, do i have to have pants on???

lowsound

0, 1, 2

You want to find the fourth.

n= 0 + (1*4)
n=4

OK, let's try:

3, 2, 1

You want to find the 4th term.

n=3+(1*4)
n=7

Doesn't work there. Let's try the negative difference (2-3 = -1)

n=3+(-4)
n=-1

Only works with steadily increasing integers...sorry. :upset:

:thumb:

-Gav

[QUOTE=thelowsoundofbass]im in, do i have to have pants on???

lowsound[/QUOTE]
:lol:

[QUOTE=irishslappop]i wonder if it works with trignometric funtions. or with double nad half angle formulas.[/QUOTE]

i don't know, i just came up with this like 40 minutes ago, tho me and gav will work on it.

lowsound

[QUOTE=Dieforitall89]Me and my crew of imaginary pirates shall join, at the cost of your soul.[/QUOTE]
you strike a hard bargin you do. the fellowship of the potatoes. me, my chupacabra, DFIA and his legion of non-exsistent pirates.

[QUOTE=I0Play0Bass]0, 1, 2

You want to find the fourth.

n= 0 + (1*4)
n=4

OK, let's try:

3, 2, 1

You want to find the 4th term.

n=3+(1*4)
n=7

Doesn't work there. Let's try the negative difference (2-3 = -1)

n=3+(-4)
n=-1

Only works with steadily increasing integers...sorry. :upset:

:thumb:

-Gav[/QUOTE]
Your having too much fun with this. :lol:

Wow. I'm glad to see noone cares about me.

Right...we start our quest tomorrow*is tempted to make a thread but holds it in* Right 1.2k posts and im out, later guys. :wave:

[QUOTE=thelowsoundofbass]im in, do i have to have pants on???

lowsound[/QUOTE]
i would prefer it but if you are unable to suit yourself with a pair of chain mail pants, you may still join this noble quest.

^ But it's still pretty cool. Almost as cool as my theory:

When you want to find the square of a number:

x^2 =(x-1)(x+1)+1

where x is the defined integer. Say the number is 2

2^2 = (2-1)(2+1) + 1

4 = (1)(3) + 1

4=4

Try it with any number...rational, irrational, pi, anything. It works.

I rule. I call it my lemma, or mini-theory.

:thumb:

-Gav

I love you, Paul.

Lowsound: Your theory would work with something like...summation or something.

:thumb:

-Gav

[QUOTE=I0Play0Bass]0, 1, 2

You want to find the fourth.

n= 0 + (1*4)
n=4

OK, let's try:

3, 2, 1

You want to find the 4th term.

n=3+(1*4)
n=7

Doesn't work there. Let's try the negative difference (2-3 = -1)

n=3+(-4)
n=-1

Only works with steadily increasing integers...sorry. :upset:

:thumb:

-Gav[/QUOTE]

ok for a sequence going down lets try using subtraction insted.

3,2,1

find forth number

n=3-(1*4)
=1 so that doesnt work how about if you use division and subtraction?

3,2,1
n=3-(1devided by 4)
=2.75 doesn't work eather. o well its a cool fromula and if you use the negitive differacne it works.

lowsound

[QUOTE=I0Play0Bass]I love you, Paul.

Lowsound: Your theory would work with something like...summation or something.

:thumb:

-Gav[/QUOTE]

im going to present it to my teacher tomorrow

lowsound

Do the chickens have large talons?

you fellow seem to like chem better then physics :angry: but anyway, my teacher found an article the other day on the net that said a swedish scientist shot a beam of light through a chamber of super heated siesium gas (gas form of a type of crystal) and it went over 300 times faster then normal like. special relativity is at question now. einstein must have turned in his grave.

[QUOTE=irishslappop]you fellow seem to like chem better then physics :angry: but anyway, my teacher found an article the other day on the net that said a swedish scientist shot a beam of light through a chamber of super heated siesium gas (gas form of a type of crystal) and it went over 300 times faster then normal like. special relativity is at question now. einstein must have turned in his grave.[/QUOTE]

You mean that light travelled 300 times faster than its normal speed?

That's weird.

:confused:

[QUOTE=irishslappop]you fellow seem to like chem better then physics :angry: but anyway, my teacher found an article the other day on the net that said a swedish scientist shot a beam of light through a chamber of super heated siesium gas (gas form of a type of crystal) and it went over 300 times faster then normal like. special relativity is at question now. einstein must have turned in his grave.[/QUOTE]

in my understanding it it would only work if the gas was super heated and its the rapidly moving atoms that push the light beam to go faster. but im not much of a sciance guy, history and math are my subjects

lowsound

im merging this with the casual

[QUOTE=gaslight]You mean that light travelled 300 times faster than its normal speed?

That's weird.

:confused:[/QUOTE]
yeah man, something like 3.454 x 10^16 miles per hour. hauling as[SIZE=1]s[/SIZE]

Isn't the speed of light supposed to like a universal constant or something fancy like that?

[QUOTE=irishslappop]you fellow seem to like chem better then physics :angry: but anyway, my teacher found an article the other day on the net that said a swedish scientist shot a beam of light through a chamber of super heated siesium gas (gas form of a type of crystal) and it went over 300 times faster then normal like. special relativity is at question now. einstein must have turned in his grave.[/QUOTE]

Cesium? Fun fact: when you put solid cesium into water, it practically explodes!

Moving on: 300 times faster? Holy ****, that is insane. 9.0x 10^11 m/s.

If so, then the speed of light is not the constant of the universe. Therefore, according to the string theory, we are all royally ****ed, as the universe will collapse into a dense vortex of mass and kill us all instantly.

If that's true, Einstein just got owned. It doesn't matter, though. Math is flawed anyway. :p

:thumb:

-Gav

Even I can go 300x the speed of light. You should be praising me!

[QUOTE=gaslight]Isn't the speed of light supposed to like a universal constant or something fancy like that?[/QUOTE]
yes, the entire theroy of special relativity is based on light (C) being constant

[QUOTE=gaslight]Isn't the speed of light supposed to like a universal constant or something fancy like that?[/QUOTE]

yes acording ot enstine, thats what e=mc2 is based off of, if that is actually true the atom bomb might actaully be made to be more effencienct and cause more dammage. using that gas combinded with what it already is

lowsound

[QUOTE=I0Play0Bass]Cesium? Fun fact: when you put solid cesium into water, it practically explodes!

Moving on: 300 times faster? Holy ****, that is insane. 9.0x 10^11 m/s.

If so, then the speed of light is not the constant of the universe. Therefore, according to the string theory, we are all royally ****ed, as the universe will collapse into a dense vortex of mass and kill us all instantly.

If that's true, Einstein just got owned. It doesn't matter, though. Math is flawed anyway. :p

:thumb:

-Gav[/QUOTE]

most of it works if you keep it to the boundrys that are set up when somethign is discovered.

lowsound

E=MC^2, meaning energy is mass moving at super high speeds.

If that experiment is true, then all of our modern physics, metaphysics, and time travel/origin theories (string theory, wormhole theory, etc.) are flawed, untrue, and that time travel is very possible.

:thumb:

-Gav

300 times more efficent A-bombs? I know what I want for Christmas.

[QUOTE=I0Play0Bass]Cesium? Fun fact: when you put solid cesium into water, it practically explodes!

Moving on: 300 times faster? Holy ****, that is insane. 9.0x 10^11 m/s.

If so, then the speed of light is not the constant of the universe. Therefore, according to the string theory, we are all royally ****ed, as the universe will collapse into a dense vortex of mass and kill us all instantly.

If that's true, Einstein just got owned. It doesn't matter, though. Math is flawed anyway. :p

:thumb:

-Gav[/QUOTE]
yeah thats how you spell it. but now that the entire universe doesn't have a single constant and we are in complete and total chaos.......we're screwed.
btw gav do you know how many dimentions must exsit for string theory to acually be possible? yeah like 16 or something lol. idk about that :lol:

[QUOTE=I0Play0Bass]E=MC^2, meaning energy is mass moving at super high speeds.

If that experiment is true, then all of our modern physics, metaphysics, and time travel/origin theories (string theory, wormhole theory, etc.) are flawed, untrue, and that time travel is very possible.

:thumb:

-Gav[/QUOTE]
as far as we know it's only void in the case of super heated gasses.

[QUOTE=gaslight]300 times more efficent A-bombs? I know what I want for Christmas.[/QUOTE]

not nessarily 300 times more efficent, but in therory since light isn't constant and can be changed the bomb could be made more powerful. i don't know how they work, but in therory it would work.

lowsound

^ Yeah, I've heard 16. If you think about it, there are tons of forces.

On any particular object on earth right now, at least 24 different forces are acting upon it at any given time.

I LOVE science discussions...I have afeeling that irish and I can make this a two-man science/math show.

With regards to the 300 times c, it could be some weird interface and reflective property with cesium. I think it's an observation error. That's just insane. In our universe, nothing is constant. That means chaos, or there's some other constant out there we have yet to find.

If that's true, physics is royally ****ed.

:thumb:

-Gav