h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Hey Corrupt, just noticed your remark about an 18th Birthday on a Thursday. Is it an upcoming birthday, or would a "happy birthday" from me be belated?

Oh, and just so you know: CLI's Department Of Arithmancy is willing to take a crack at your user number to make it equal 42.

Hehe. Twas yesterday, but considering how slow I've been to reply to birthday greetings, I certainly don't mind belated greetings. Thanks! Though I still wonder why on earth it had to be on a Thursday; spent a lot of the day doing homework and classes and calling to get a driver's test appointment.

...gah, the Commons is closing, I gotta go. And CLI will certainly be having some fun if they attempt *that*...

Oh, believe me. CLI's Department of Arithmancy can work through a good deal.

Let's see, your number is 150500 which represents some obvious problems with multiplication *and* division. What we need to do, then, is find a way for the zeroes to not equal zero.

Proof For Legal Number Transmutations
a=b // given
a^2=ab // identitive properties of multiplication
a^2-b^2=ab-b^2 // identitive properties of subtraction
(a+b)(a-b)=b(a-b) // factoring
a+b=b // Anything divided by itself is equal to 1
// Anything multiplied by 1 is equal to itself
b+b=b // because a=b
2b=b // because 1+1=2
2=1 // Anything divided by itself is equal to 1

Therefore, we can see that 1=2 for large values of 1. Because of this, we can toy around with the interpretations of numbers.

2-1=1-1
1=0

2+1=1+1
3=2
3+1=2+1
4=3
4=3=2=1=0 //QED

It goes on and on, effectively prooving that all integers stretching from the negative infinite to the positive infinite can be equal to each other for extremely large (or small) values of each other.

Now then, let's divide this user number into three sections:

(1) & (505) & (00)

Because 1=2=3=4, I can alter this to be (4) & (505) & (00) for very large values of 1. Therefore, if we toss in the arithmetic operators as follows:

4*(5+0+5) & (00)

Then we're already up to 40. All that remains is to add two to it. This is the easiest bit so far, however.

0=1 // proven

Both zeroes can be transformed into ones.

4*(5+0+5) & (11)

We can just add a few more arithmetic operators to find the result:

(4*(5+0+5))+(1+1)=42

Therefore, we can say without any hesitation whatsoever that

(1*(5+0+5)+(0+0)=42 for large values of 1 and 0.

This has been a calculation from CLI's Department Of Arithmancy. We'll be sending the bill along shortly.

Heh-heh-heh....

Oh, believe me. CLI's Department of Arithmancy can work through a good deal.

Let's see, your number is 150500 which represents some obvious problems with multiplication *and* division. What we need to do, then, is find a way for the zeroes to not equal zero.

Proof For Legal Number Transmutations
a=b // given
a^2=ab // identitive properties of multiplication
a^2-b^2=ab-b^2 // identitive properties of subtraction
(a+b)(a-b)=b(a-b) // factoring
a+b=b // Anything divided by itself is equal to 1
// Anything multiplied by 1 is equal to itself
b+b=b // because a=b
2b=b // because 1+1=2
2=1 // Anything divided by itself is equal to 1

Therefore, we can see that 1=2 for large values of 1. Because of this, we can toy around with the interpretations of numbers.

2-1=1-1
1=0

2+1=1+1
3=2
3+1=2+1
4=3
4=3=2=1=0 //QED

It goes on and on, effectively prooving that all integers stretching from the negative infinite to the positive infinite can be equal to each other for extremely large (or small) values of each other.

Now then, let's divide this user number into three sections:

(1) & (505) & (00)

Because 1=2=3=4, I can alter this to be (4) & (505) & (00) for very large values of 1. Therefore, if we toss in the arithmetic operators as follows:

4*(5+0+5) & (00)

Then we're already up to 40. All that remains is to add two to it. This is the easiest bit so far, however.

0=1 // proven

Both zeroes can be transformed into ones.

4*(5+0+5) & (11)

We can just add a few more arithmetic operators to find the result:

(4*(5+0+5))+(1+1)=42

Therefore, we can say without any hesitation whatsoever that

(1*(5+0+5)+(0+0)=42 for large values of 1 and 0.

This has been a calculation from CLI's Department Of Arithmancy. We'll be sending the bill along shortly.

Heh-heh-heh....

wow, you divided by zero and didn't get any problems with it. whenever I try that something goes wrong.

That's because we're CLI. Crater Labs has developed the Infinite Rise processor, a computer math-coprocessor that is capable of divisions by zero. For when someone divides by zero, the mathematical solution isn't "error", the solution is, logically, an infinite number.

It took a while to produce, but CLI's "Department OF Arithmancy" wouldn't be the same without it.

n=0.999...
10n=9.999...
10n-n=9.999...-0.999...
9n=9
n=1
1=0.999... //QED

This has been a calculation from CLI. Crater Labs, Incorporated-Where Explosion Build Character!

yes, and for that reason it can be proven that there is no life in the universe.

if the universe is infinite, and the amount of universe which can sustain life is finite, then the persentage of the universe wich can sustain life is
for f= any finite number, i = infinity

f/i =0

100 x 0 =0%

Ah, but the Universe is *not* infinite. For you see, we can't have an infinite Universe collapsing into itself and becoming a monstrous black hole, can we? The Universe does have a perimiter, otherwise it wouldn't expand.

but the universe doesnt expand per se, the objects inside it are mearly moving apart

No, the Universe is very finite. I'll give you that reality isn't warping to stretch all of the objects in creation, but the issue of gravity is too strong.

The universe cannot be finite for the simple reason that to be finite it must have distinct boundries, something which the universe by definition cannot have.

By definition? I'm sorry, but nearly every major physicist that I've read about agrees that there are, in fact, boundaries to the Universe. Even the ones who hypothesize that the Universe might be, in some small way, infinite accept the fact that the Universe has boundaries.

There've been many major recent breakthroughs with String Theory and other various studies that have practically proven that the Universe is finite. To sum up, just check out The January 2004 issue of Discover Magazine, and the January 11th, 2004 issue of The Chicago Tribune Magazine. For the latter, I believe the story'll start on page eleven, but I don't know the exact page of the former (lost the magazine).

If the universe has boundries then there would need to be something outside the universe to define those boundries by, and as the word Universe means 'everything' then that would be part of the universe. Also, I can't easily get hold of the chicago tribune, due to being based in the UK. Ok, I've been out of mainstreem science for a few years, so opinion may have changed, but I remember having arguments with Physics lecturers at my old college about weather the speed of light was a constant or not, & I had to take several papers by Cosmologist in to demonstrate that it has changed over the life of the universe.

Very good. You've demonstrated that the speed of light has changed over time. It's also been demonstrated that the value of Pi isn't what it was a long, long time ago. However, neither of these facts have much to do with the question of whether or not the Universe has boundaries. Even if I were to bring up, say, the fact that the Universe is expanding at a faster rate now than it was in the past, that also would have little to no bearing.

That the Universe means "everything" does not mean that there has to be something outside of it when there are boundaries (however, I would maintain that this isn't a proper definition for Universe, but that's not the point of debate anyway). Simply put, the Universe just has to end.

What's on the other side of this all-encompassing shell? Well, there isn't another side, so the question itself is flawed. It's interesting to ask oneself just what the edge of the Universe might be (theories range from a force that constantly pushes things inwards to a "dimensional loop" that'll just send you to the opposite end when you pass), but the question of what exists outside the boundaries of the Universe is mistaken in that the questioner assumes that there is an outside for things to exist in (which there wouldn't be).

Now then, I'll search through the Chicago Tribune and Discover Magazine websites if you're not keen on taking that initiative....gimme a bit....

If you are talking about the WMAP (Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe) data then that in itself is both a) inconclusive and b) can be used to demonstrate that the 'Hall of mirrors' effect doesn't actually exist, although that is using the data they have at the moment.

I see that we've all been having a fun weekend here...

yup , and I noticed you and the rest of STUMPED fled when the Fluffy Bunnies arived

Nah, we just ended up taking that free vacation to Hawaii.

"The rest of STUMPED"?

This guy doesn't have a clue as to how big STUMPED is, does he?

ok, I'll ellaborate, You and the rest of the STUMPED army which was attacking us, and I'd guess that there are less than there would have been if you'd replied to people befor NC got to 'em & I don't care how many there are, Bring em all on, me an' da bunnies 'll kick all yo asses...


...erm sorry, I don't know where that came from, but ne'er mind im better now. Auch criven I'll give youz a good kickin ya wee jessie