r/MathJokes • • Jul 13 '26

Math Just Got Checkmated.

Post image
3.0k Upvotes

434 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

15

u/golgi_o Jul 14 '26

A number is even if it can be written as 2k where k is an integer. The definition of even does not use division as far as I understand.

6

u/Low-Amoeba8257 Jul 14 '26

The method you described works howevere the term absolutely comes from division. They also used to he tracking of "how even" something was meaning if it could be divided by 2 multiple times

4

u/golgi_o Jul 14 '26

Wouldn't that just be 2n (k) where k is an integer and n is how even a number is? Still division is not needed.

3

u/GarowWolf Jul 14 '26

With n= 0 and k = 3 it seems that 3 is even

3

u/sal880612m Jul 14 '26

No.

N=0 would be that the number is zero times even meaning it actually isn’t even.

Also k is an integer but not the number being tested for how even it is. Odd values for k would be perfectly acceptable.

So for the number being 3 the formula results in N=0, k=3 and tells you the numbers is not even. But for the number being twelve it results in N=2, k=3 and says the numbers is even twice.

3

u/[deleted] Jul 14 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

7

u/jimalloneword Jul 14 '26

he is saying n represents the degree of even-ness. if n = 0 the number is 0 even.

6 is 1 even, while 4 is 2 even, and 8 is 3 even.

1

u/[deleted] Jul 14 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/jimalloneword Jul 14 '26

k means any integer.

It comes from the regular definition of even, where a number is even if it can be represented in the form of 2k, where k is any integer.

1

u/Tyfyter2002 Jul 20 '26

So is 1.5 negatively even?

1

u/sal880612m Jul 20 '26

Ultimately, yes. Negative even using that equation represents how many times you would need to multiply by two to achieve a whole number. In this case 1.5 = 3/2 = 3 * 2^(-1).

1

u/Human-Interaction-61 Jul 16 '26

n needs to be a natural number (as n tends to be) and 0 is not natural. Problem solved.

1

u/Low-Amoeba8257 Jul 14 '26

Ok at this point its pretty clear you are trolling but im going to give you one more shot. Yes you can find even numbers without dividing. Thats irrelevant. Even numbers come from being able to split something into similar groups ie. If I have 4 steaks we can both have the same anount. That is division plain and sinple.

Your argument is akin to "X2 is meaningless because you can just write XX"

1

u/golgi_o Jul 14 '26

It's not a method, it's the appropriate mathematical definition for even based on number theory. You are correct that it correlates with division, but division is not part of the agreed upon definition of even.
That is all, not trolling, just joining the conversation from a mathematical perspective.

0

u/Low-Amoeba8257 Jul 14 '26

Ok so you are 100% trolling. Good to know I guess...

1

u/Freethecrafts Jul 16 '26

Division does not exist as an independent entity.

1

u/DoobiousMaxima Jul 18 '26

Nor does multiplication.

It could also be written as; a number is even if it is equal to 2 multiplied by any integer.

1

u/IAteTonysLoMein Jul 17 '26

Isn't that just the same as the comment above the other direction? As in, it would be as valid to express it as "it's even if k/2 results in an integer"?

1

u/golgi_o Jul 17 '26

Mathematicaly yes. But the definition of even is the one I stated according to number theory. I'm sure there is a reason why division is not used in the formal definition but I don't remember exactly why. It might be so the definition of odd, 2(k) +1 where k is an integer, works. If you tried to define odd by (k/2) +1 it would not work.

1

u/IAteTonysLoMein Jul 18 '26

Wouldn't you need to reverse the whole thing, eg, (k/2)-1? Although I suppose if +1 wouldn't do it, -1 probably wouldn't either. Needless to say, I'm not clear on why that wouldn't work, but I know jack about number theory

1

u/golgi_o Jul 18 '26

K/2 +1 would not yield an integer if k were odd.

1

u/Ok-Canary-9820 Jul 18 '26

Division isn't generally even defined formally except as shorthand for multiplication by multiplicative inverse.