Winston Churchill... A carrot ???
-
![]()
Winston Churchill... A carrot ???
Did you know that Winston Churchill is a carrot? Here's the proof.
Let a=1 and b=1
Now b^2=ab (Equation 1)
Since a equals itself, it is obvious that a^2=a^2 (Equation 2)
Subtract Equation 1 from Equation 2 yields a^2-b^2=a^2-ab (Equation 3)
Let's factorise both sides of Equation 3 (a+b)(a-b)=a(a-b) (Equation 4)
Divide both sides of Equation 4 by the common denominator (a-b) yields a+b=a (Equation 5)
Subtract a from both sides and we get b=0 (Equation 6)
If you recall, we set b=1 at the begining of this proof. Therefore 1=0 (Equation 7)
Now here comes the crux of the proof that Winston Churchill (hereafter referred to as WC) is a carrot.
We know that WC has one head. But Equation 7 states one equals zero, so WC has no head. Likewise, WC has no leafy tops, so by the same equation WC has one leafy top.
If we multiply Equation 7 by 2 we get 2=0 (Equation 8)
From Equation 8 WC has two arms, therefore WC has no arms. Likewise, WC has two legs, therefore WC has no legs.
We now multiply Equation 7 by WC's waist size: Waist Size=0 (Equation 9)
This means that WC tapers to a point.
Now for the colour. Take any ray of light emanating from him and select a photon. Multiply Equation 7 by the wavelength of the photon and we see that WC's Photon Wavelength=0 (Equation 10)
Multiply both sides of Equation 7 by the wavelength of an orange photon yields 640=0 (Equation 11)
Combine Equations 10 and 11 WC's Photon Wavelength=640
Therefore, any photon emanating from WC is orange.
Summing up, we have proved the following mathematically.
1) WC has no arms or legs.
2) Instead of a head, he has a leafy top.
3) He tapers to a point.
4) He is bright orange.
By all intents and purposes, therefore, it is clear that WC is a carrot.
Q.E.D.
-
-
-
Wow how times have changed, all that mathematics to see one of our former PM's is a carrot. I only have to turn the TV on to see our current one is a turnip.
-
-
Wrong: (a+b)(a-b)=a(a-b) (Equation 4)
Correct: (a+b)(a-b)= a^2-ab+ab-b^2 = a^2-b^2
Another Edit: This is done in many forms to try and prove that 1=0, but it is at this point that I always see this failure.
Likewise, the formula "(a+b)(a-b)= " deontes, that there are two answers to the formula in that there are two possible outcomes a+b and a-b... thus two different answers for this fomula either subracting b or adding b. a will never yeild the same result unless b=0
-
Wow how times have changed, all that mathematics to see one of our former PM's is a carrot. I only have to turn the TV on to see our current one is a turnip.
Isn't that an insult to turnips? 
-
Wrong: (a+b)(a-b)=a(a-b) (Equation 4)
Correct: (a+b)(a-b)= a^2-ab+ab-b^2 = a^2-b^2 = (a-b)^2
Which probably means He's not a carrot, but an off color Banana 
-
-
-
for all points and purposes, he might be a carrot, but not by this formula's setup
-
![]()
Wrong: (a+b)(a-b)=a(a-b) (Equation 4)
Correct: (a+b)(a-b)= a^2-ab+ab-b^2 = a^2-b^2
Another Edit: This is done in many forms to try and prove that 1=0, but it is at this point that I always see this failure.
Likewise, the formula "(a+b)(a-b)= " deontes, that there are two answers to the formula in that there are two possible outcomes a+b and a-b... thus two different answers for this fomula either subracting b or adding b. a will never yeild the same result unless b=0
I don't quite understand the last paragraph... Are you saying that the two terms in (a+b)(a-b) = ???? can only mean two roots? If so, there are many polynomials with a single root. Or more properly I guess two identical roots.
Actually Equation 4 is correct if a=b... The biggest error comes in the following step.
if a=b then a-b=0 and equation 5 is derived by dividing both sides by zero, which is not defined.
Of course if a=b, equation 4 can be reduced to 0=0 which is perfectly valid, but applying undefined functions makes the proof invalid.
-
Actually, this is dividing by zero.
Which makes the world implode.
Thereby proving he is a carrot.
~Lordbob
Quote