Topic: 666+666÷666x666-666 = ???????

Catherine !TGirlYJKXM started this discussion 10 years ago #55,165

Take a guess.

666

Anonymous B joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 1 minute later[^] [v] #714,634

Freaky.

Anonymous C joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 31 minutes later, 33 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #714,641

Let me get this straight... If you divide a number by itself and then multiply it by that number. Then add that number and then subtract the same amount, then you get that number?? Crazy. It's like magic.

Anonymous B replied with this 10 years ago, 27 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #714,647

@previous (C)

> It's like magic.

It isn't though, that's what makes it so freaky. This thing actually checks out, I mean mathematically. It isn't magic.

Anonymous C replied with this 10 years ago, 30 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #714,654

@previous (B)
> Divide something by itself (and get 1)
> Multiply it by itself (and get the original number)
> Add the number and then subtract the same amount (two operations that effectively cancel each other out) and get the original number.
> You can do this with any number except zero.

It's not freaky. It's like pacing back and forth and being amazed that you ended up in the same place after an hour.

Anonymous D joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 34 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #714,666

@previous (C)
That's a pretty lame magic trick, just pacing back and forth

Anonymous B replied with this 10 years ago, 8 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #714,681

@714,654 (C)
You're missing the point. OP posted a very weird mathematical quirk, it's not about magic or pacing about a room.

Anonymous C replied with this 10 years ago, 1 hour later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #714,728

@previous (B)
Doing one operation and then doing the opposite isn't a weird mathematical quirk - much like screwing the cap on the bottle and then unscrewing back off isn't a weird quirk of the way screw threads work.

Anonymous B replied with this 10 years ago, 5 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #714,730

@previous (C)
You are still missing the point. OP is talking about a very odd mathematical coincidence, why are you bringing things like pacing back and forth and now bottle caps into it? If you think about the equation in his OP it's pretty incredible that it works out to that same exact sum.

kook !!OPZbEQMT1 joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 4 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #714,734

@714,728 (C)
He's pretending to be dense

Anonymous B replied with this 10 years ago, 2 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #714,735

@previous (kook !!OPZbEQMT1)
Now why did you have to go spoil a perfectly good troll?

VERYANONYMOUS joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 1 hour later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #714,749

Some theory could explain it. Just like Pie, it is an anomaly.

Syntax joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 17 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #714,750

@previous (VERYANONYMOUS)
> Pie

Pi not an anomaly. A constant and again a case when English is so fucked up because in English it is called an irrational number which makes no common sense whatsoever

Syntax double-posted this 10 years ago, 32 seconds later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #714,751

@previous (Syntax)

Metæ joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 4 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #714,752

This is the mathematical equivalent of that trick where you pull your thumb off.

Anonymous B replied with this 10 years ago, 7 hours later, 13 hours after the original post[^] [v] #714,848

I was literally 2 posts away from getting anon C to start wasting his time by posting illustrations to walk people through this and then Kook had to come in and fuck the whole thing up.

Sophie !MLHqI35Srs joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 7 hours later, 20 hours after the original post[^] [v] #714,893

@714,734 (kook !!OPZbEQMT1)
Or rather she seems denser because autism.
These days I'm willing to believe she's brighter than I gacve previous credit for. Never anything above average but certainly a solid 100-110.

悟 joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 2 hours later, 23 hours after the original post[^] [v] #714,938

@714,735 (B)
she's actually dense

Anonymous C replied with this 10 years ago, 1 day later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #715,220

@714,734 (kook !!OPZbEQMT1)
Yeah, I got that from the start. I just was just going down that road to spell out for Cathy how it wasn't freaky at all. I would not have wasted my time posting illustrations. Anon B is having delusions of grandeur about his trolling abilities.

Minichan