Places to Chat
The Bus-Twinkie Theorem
Chatterbox: Down to Earth
The Bus-Twinkie Theorem
The Bus-Twinkie Theorem of Awesomeness!
Okay, now that I've got your attention, I can properly explain myself. So, I was walking out of math one day con mi amiga, I said something about a Twinkie, and for some odd reason, she thought I was talking about buses. We got mildly confused, but I resolved to write a proof that would tell the world that a bus is a Twinkie. Or, at least, a bus full of kids.
The Bus-Twinkie Theorem of Awesomeness states that if a bus is full of kids, it is a Twinkie.
GIVEN: Bus A is full of kids.
PROVE: Bus A is a Twinkie.
1. Bus A is full of kids. (Given)
2. Kids like sugar. (Sugar Postulate)
3. Twinkies are made of sugar. (Definition of a Twinkie)
4. Kids like Twinkies. (Transitive Property of Objects)
5. Kids eat Twinkies. (Eating Property of Sugar)
6. Kids are Twinkies. (You Are What You Eat Theorem)
7. Bus A is full of Twinkies. (Substitution- 6 --> 1)
8. Bus A has eaten the Twinkies. (Getting In A Vehicle Constitutes Being Eaten By It Theorem)
9. Bus A is a Twinkie. (You Are What You Eat Theorem)
Then, I proceeded to prove that a yellow car was a Cheesewagon. (A Cheesewagon is a wagon full of cheese, or so states Ash.)
The Cheesewagon Theorem of Awesomeness states that a yellow car is a Cheesewagon.
Given: Car A is yellow.
Prove: Car A is a Cheesewagon.
1. Car A is yellow. (Given)
2. Cheese is yellow. (Cheese Color Theorem)
3. Car A is the same color as cheese. (Transitive Property of Properties)
4. A Cheesewagon is a wagon full of cheese. (Definition of a Cheesewagon)
5. A yellow car is equal to a round of cheese. (Corollary to the Cheese Color Theorem)
6.A Cheesewagon is a wagon full of yellow cars. (Substitution 3 -> 4)
7. A Cheesewagon ate the yellow cars. (Getting In A Vehicle Constitutes Being Eaten By It Theorem)
8. A Cheesewagon is a yellow car. (You Are What You Eat Theorem)
9. A Cheesewagon is Car A. (Substitution 1 -> 7)
10. Car A is a Cheesewagon. (Symmetric Property of Equality)
This leads me to my Acual Point. Have you ever done weird, illogical things like this and looked back on it and said, "Dude! I am a GENIUS!" at all?
Or, if nobody cares, this can become the next randomness thread.
Don't Forget To Be Awesome
--L
submitted by L
(September 17, 2012 - 3:54 pm)
(September 17, 2012 - 3:54 pm)
Aargh! We have just started proving things in Geometry and it so annoying! and it will only get worse! So right now I think if you don't want me to explode at you, I would recommend you don't mention proofs and also 'justice', 'courage', 'prejudice', and 'To Kill A Mockingbird'.
But now I shall disprove your Twinkie theorem.
Given: I am 13 years old. I don't like Twinkies.
Prove: The Bus-Twinkie Theorem of Awesomeness is false.
1. I am 13 years old. Given.
2. A Kid is less then 18 years old. Definition of kid.
3. 13<18. Property of Common Mathematical Sense.
4. I am less then 18 years old. Substitution property.
5. I am a Kid. Definition of Kid.
6. I don't like Twinkies. Given.
7. Kids like Twinkies. Stated above in Bus theorem.
8. I am a Kid, yet I don't likke Twinkies. This does not compute. Therefore, the Bus-Twinlkle Theorem of Awesomeness is false. I'm sure I messed up on something here, but we just started, therfore I'm not very good.
9.adec. The Captcha Property
(September 17, 2012 - 7:46 pm)
I will disprove your counterproof. Seriously. Don't test me. I've survived Geometry AND Honours Advanced Algebra 2, am starting Pre-Calc, and will do anything to make sure that I am right.
So, your Given has your start and end in it. That's not okay. what you want to do is prove that you don't like Twinkies, but still are a kid. Which is impossible in a formal proof like so. Unless you happen to know the guy who proved Fermat's Last Theorem. Then it might be possible.
There is no property of common mathematical sense. There is no way to prove anything by just saying "It makes sense."
In step 7, you used the Bus-Twinkie Theorem of Awesomeness to state that kids like Twinkies. This is incorrect in two ways. The BTTA does not state that kids like Twinkies. The BTTA states that a bus full of kids is a Twinkie. Your reasoning is therefore flawed.
In addition, you use the BTTA to disprove the BTTA. That means that you have disproved your own proof by using a theorem that you disproved... in the proof. This is not quite circular logic (using a theorem to prove itself), it's kind of... Möbius logic. That's still not okay.
You're using the Definition of Kid twice in different contexts. This may work in English class, but not Geometry, oh no! The Definition of a Kid states that a kid is under thirteen years old. It does not state that Sakura C. is a kid.
Therefore, your counterproof is flawed.
If I'm coming across harsh and stuff, don't worry. I get the same flack from everybody else. Also, we're not dealing with actual theorems* so it's more difficult to prove it than with math stuff.
Note: Math theorems are much easier, I swear! And it's fine if you don't like Twinkies. Technically, kid-cutoff age is around ten or eleven nowadays, so you cannot disprove this with yourself.
Another Note: Since step 9 isn't actually part of your proof, you may want to put it into a separate thingy.
_______
*Actually, I did prove the You Are What You Eat Theorem in a
paragraph proof - what you eat is absorbed into your system and is taken
to each of your cells to maintain them and the nutrients become the
cells' organelles and cell walls and whatnot; therefore they are the cells, and the cells are you.
Don't Forget To Be Awesome
--L
(September 22, 2012 - 5:46 pm)
Why did I spell "Honors" with a u?
(September 23, 2012 - 4:46 pm)
Top!!!!!!!!!!!!
(September 21, 2012 - 9:52 pm)
I know what a Twinkie is. I have seen a Twinkie, but have never eaten one.
Capcha says tmpn. Yes,I supose some kids would think a Twinkie tempt'n.
(September 22, 2012 - 6:28 pm)
This is awesome reasoning! But I don't like Twinkies. I still ride on a Twinkie though. More disproving Sakura's DisProving Proof:
The Theorem states that kids like sugar, and leads to the Twinkies by saying that Twinkies are made of sugar, so you do not have to like Twinkies to be a kid, or ride on a Twinkie.
(September 23, 2012 - 7:47 am)
If this is what proving things in geometry is like, I do not think I am going to like math this year.
(September 23, 2012 - 2:10 pm)
*being a voice of reassurance*
You start out with really easy stuff, like justifying that algebra works and stuff. Like if 2x=4, then x=2 because of the Multiplicative Property of Equality by 2.
This is just really abstract, so it's weird.
Keep Calm and Do Math!
(September 23, 2012 - 4:24 pm)
It is pretty easy right now. We just have to do stuff like: prove angle a is conguent to angle b or prove point d is coplaner with line segment pq or something like that.
(September 23, 2012 - 4:54 pm)
You'll get harder soon enough. Just hope that your teacher doesn't make you prove the Hypotenuse-Leg Theorem on your own... we did. Lots of yelling and paper airplanes made.
(September 24, 2012 - 3:50 pm)
*applause* That's really clever. And really funny. Wow. I am now imagining a whole book based off it. The Funny Math Book... I'm going to show it to my father, if I remember. He'll love it.
(November 5, 2012 - 4:48 pm)
I shall top this thread until it returns to its rightful place on the front page where people can see it and gasp in awe.
(March 19, 2013 - 3:04 pm)
el top
(March 19, 2013 - 5:46 pm)
I'm pretty sure I gasped in awe.
(March 19, 2013 - 6:15 pm)
Yes yay point has been made!
(March 19, 2013 - 8:25 pm)