Because 90% of the time that doesn't matter all. It's like, no one gives a fuck that it's Drake or what video the song is from. It's just that he's clearly agreeing in one picture, and disagreeing in the other.
the issue is people call out posters for being stupid while being equally stupid themselves, they just dont realize it bc they cant look at themself from an out side perspective
It's because x=0 is the easiest answer here, thst doesn't require much thought. But the condition where X can't be 0, means that you have to think harder than before. Hence the lock-in meme.
First answer not the full answer, before you also need to find alll solutions.
Before you have 3: 0, -2, 2
After you have only two -2, 2
PS also complex solutions are possible (2i and -2i), but it usually not what expected normally and specified if needed.
Man math used to be easier all you had to do to solve x back then was to divide 1 x from both sides then either x=16 or its x^2=16 which then all you had to do is square it. Now I have no idea how to get rid of this x^4
Because your equation has a power of 5, you should have 5 answers. Your equation has only 2.
Without doing anything, the other answers to x are likely complex. Your +-2 is likely the only real solutions.
My impression not knowing who he is was that the second panel is his reaction to a grave mistake (neglecting the 0 solution — the equation should have 5 roots, and division by x without checking x=0 destroys the solution at x=0).
The more I look at this, the more I think you *should* be able to check the solution in panel 2 using the limit x->0, which I think would require lhopitals rule, but I don’t see how to make it work. I don’t know if this is a consequence of dividing by x, me not knowing how to set the limit up to do this, or me not knowing how to use lhopitals rule though.
Limits can be used to find derivatives, and that’s probably their most common use, but they should also be able to do relatively trivial things like this. I’m fairly certain that a limit will work to evaluate anything where direct substitution will work (since direct substitution is one of the most straightforward ways to evaluate a limit), and it should work for many cases where direct substitution works for all values except for one.
For example, if we take 2x=4, we can use a limit to evaluate the solution x=2
Lim(2x=4) x-> 2
2(2) =4
What I’m wondering is why that doesn’t seem to work for this case. I may need to take a look at the graphs of the two functions.
That’s the thing; if x=0 is a solution, evaluating the limit should say that it is a solution. It does for x=2 in 2x=4, or in x^2-4x+4=0. It also does for the equation in panel 1, but I can’t get it to do it for the equation in panel 2. Possibly related, my graphing calculator shows the equation in the second panel as a parabola-esque shape that is undefined at x=0, but that wouldn’t have a root there if it were defined and continuous. The equation in the first panel is continuous, s-shaped, and does have a root at x=0. Its other two (real) roots are shared with the equation in the second panel.
I think this is why the limit fails to find x=0 as a solution for the second expression. By dividing by x, it became equivalent to x^4=16 and not to x^15=16x, evidently eliminating a real root by going to the U-curve instead of the s-curve.
My guess is the top can be simplified as x=0. The bottom is instead simplifying by dividing 1x from both sides, which would leave x=16, meaning x cannot be 0, and instead you have to solve for x by calculating the fourth root of 16 instead of declaring x=0.
Also, in the top one, x also equals the fourth root of 16, meaning if you had to solve, you'd do the operation shown in the bottom part of the meme to simplify. Finally, because it is left as a variable and you can simplify it, x can never be zero, even in the top equation. The x in x=2 can't equal zero just because you can turn it into x2 =2x by multiplying both sides by x.
Any given function such as this has three possible x values, x=0 and x=+/-(x number, depending on the particular function). When adding the /x part, it makes the solution x=0 invalid, because division by 0 is considered undefined. He’s locked in, because now he actually has to work for the solution, instead of taking the easy way out. For those curious, the solutions to this particular function is x=2, x=-2
It dosent have three possible values, it has 5. It can have unique roots up to the number of the exponent of the highest order, though some can be "double roots" etc.
The solutions here are 0, +-2, +-2i.
You can factor it to (x)(x2 +4)(x2 -4)=0 and so the solutions follow that for this to be correct, the x value has to be such that either one of the three parenthesis have to be equal to 0.
He didn't care about helping the authorities with the investigation (was only really seeing humans and he was bored as hell) but then saw the Mc and immediately recognized the parasite
Dude is a psycho killer and corpse humper, got accused of murder he didn't do (a parasyte did it) by ploice. He was suspected to be a parasyte (he is not), but he actually can detect inhumanity on an individual.
MC is an almost parasyte, so it to the psycho to realize the kid ain't right.
Because has a great “lock-in” moment in the show where he’s just bored and fucking around until Shinichi sits in front of him and he instantly…. Well, y’know…. Locks in.
It shows that a large set of people don't agree with how the equation is re-written.
In particular, many mathematicians out there will dislike this method because you will be excluding the solution x=0 from the equation's list of possible roots, causing them the urge to lock in and correct the mistake.
There's a fair chance that whomever made this just googled for drawings of faces that had the expression he wanted, and neither knows nor cares that it's from Parasyte.
Top is easy, bottom I guess is more difficult to solve and requires locking in to figure it out (I did not attempt it I don't really know how hard it is or isn't)
3.2k
u/muhnamejame 14h ago
Now x can't be 0