reinout-g

Challenge accepted;

$$3x = 60\\
x = \lim_{n->\infty} \begin{pmatrix}
\frac{27n^3+27n^2-27n+27}{\frac{27}{5}n^3+\frac{27}{4}n^2+\frac{27}{3}n+\frac{27}{2}} \\
27^{\frac{1}{n}}+((\frac{1}{n})!)
\end{pmatrix}
\sqrt{((cos(\frac{1}{4}\pi)+isin(\frac{1}{4} \pi))(cos(\frac{1}{4}\pi)-isin(\frac{1}{4} \pi))-e^{i\pi}-2(cos(\frac{3}{4}\pi)+isin(\frac{3}{4} \pi))^4)}\\
\mbox{ where }\begin{pmatrix}
m \\
r
\end{pmatrix} \mbox{ is the combination of m taken r}$$

Even though the function might not be defined in the sense of f(n) = 80n-275, it still maps R->R which even though it is an undefined function still has a domain and range. The question here is not whether or not this function has a domain and range, but rather whether it's a mathematical fallacy to have an undefined function.

Thank you Bertie, I didn't know you could remove the $$14-\lambda$$ as a common factor from a single column.

Seeing this definitely helps.

You're a hero 

I'm sorry Bertie, but do you mind writing it out?

I know it is a lot to ask, but I'm completely lost at the part where you start taking (14-L) out and adding rows and such. I think I don't remember enough rules about computing the determinant to be able to follow you by your explanation.

(And yes, I am not allowed to use a calculator on my exam).

Some fine german lessons here!

Did you know that two philosophers named Bertrand Russell and Alfred North Whitehead published the principia mathematica which was meant to be the foundation of mathematics. They described a set of axioms and inference rules in symbolic logic from which any mathematical truth should've been provable. On page 378(!) they finally were able to speak about a proof defining 1+1 = 2, but couldn't prove it yet, because they hadn't defined addition yet. 

Imagine spending years trying to write that!

And here's the worst part...

In 1910 they published their first print which was altered a couple of times during the years to come. In 1931 however a philospher named Gödel gave an indisputable proof that their work, or any other work for that matter, would not be able to describe the foundation of mathematics.

Imagine writing over 600 pages of highly complicated math only to learn you will never reach your goal.

Think 1+1 is easy? 

Think again!

Not so far,

it was actually proven that the number of decimals to descibe pi is an infinite number and the decimals don't have a repetitive pattern.

I changed my answer because I made a mistake swapping perpendicular and parallel.

Thank you Alan for making me aware of that .

AAARGH!

I KNEW IT!

I always thought you were a pirate!