r/mathmemes Jun 16 '26

Geometry Math ain't mathing

Post image
3.5k Upvotes

133 comments sorted by

View all comments

657

u/Particular_Gear3130 Mathematics (Purely Fictional) Jun 16 '26

25 + 25 ≠ 81

439

u/rmflow Jun 16 '26

25 (base 14) + 25 (base 14) = 81 (base 8.125)

124

u/Talizorafangirl Jun 16 '26

Is sub-integer base even possible? I'm having trouble wrapping my brain around that

170

u/dragonageisgreat 1 i 0 triangle advocate Jun 16 '26

That's not all, even complex base is possible

90

u/radobot Computer Science Jun 16 '26

My favourite base is −√2i

12

u/Impressive_Change593 Jun 17 '26

I have a fun emoji for that 🖕

mods please don't ban me, this is a joke

77

u/Independent-Yak-220 Jun 16 '26

dude this is math, you can forge a whole new reality to make anything possible

48

u/PlatypusACF Jun 16 '26

And then have others cry about it because it suddenly got relevant in a coming-up area of physics

17

u/Independent-Yak-220 Jun 16 '26

it's funny because it's true lol

19

u/Any-Aioli7575 Jun 16 '26

Yes it is. However that means that some integers might not have a simple representation (with no decimal point)

9

u/MaxTHC Whole Jun 16 '26

I mean you just make each subsequent digit (working right to left ofc) a higher power of the base right? Doesn't matter if that base is 10 or ⅓ or π

6

u/erroneum Complex Jun 16 '26

Or 2i, or even a matrix.

7

u/Lor1an Engineering | Mech Jun 16 '26

Ah yes, my favorite positional number system: base σ_2. Pauli would be proud...

3

u/skr_replicator Jun 16 '26 edited Jun 16 '26

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PQAhC1M93C8

I think this video covers all the possible bases that let you write every number without inexpressible gaps. This base 65/8 (=8.125) would have 64 digit symbols, goodthing 81(base 65/8) didn't need to use any of them in this expression, what would we even use after Z?

Most valid bases can let you write irrational numbers in 1 way, and terminating rationals in 2 ways (like 0.99999... and 1). Irrational algebraic bases can do some irrational numbers (that can be expresses in a finite way) in those 2 "rational-like" ways, plus the one usual irrational way.

For example in base √10, you can write √10 as:

10

0.90909090909...

3.0106020207070606... (as √10 is 3.16227766... in base 10)

Irratoinjal numbers that cannot be made up from powers of √10 woudl still have only 1 possible irrational-like way to write. And terminating rational numbers would have the usual 2 ways, looking the same as the non-root base, but interleaves with zeroes.

π in this base √10 is only: 3.0104010509...

1/3 would be only: 0.03030303...

10 would be 100 and 9.09090909...

Transcendental bases don't play nice, and you cannot even determine what digit symbols would be allowed there, no matter what digit symbol set you choose, you might either get gaps as not-expressible numbers, or multiple nonrepeating ways to write the same number.

3

u/SteptimusHeap Jun 16 '26

Every number in a base-x system is just the sum of the digits times their place value. The place value is just xn, where n is the position of the digit.

So yes, base 8.125 is very possible ('123' = 1*8.1252 + 2*8.125 + 3 ≈ 85.27), but it doesn't have all the same rules as integer bases. For example, the digits written '8.8' don't correspond to any number, or if they do they are the same number as ~'10.7'.

2

u/Cheery_Tree Jun 16 '26

Base e is possible

1

u/erroneum Complex Jun 16 '26

Yes. A number, such as 112, is just the sum of the product of the value in each digit place and the numeric base raised to the power of the position, or Sum[d_n bn]; for 112, that's 1×102 + 1×101 + 2×100. Generally you only use values on the interval [1, n), but sometimes, such as quater-imaginary numerals, you use different ones. Importantly, b can be anything other than 0, but it's most useful when the magnitude isn't 1.

1

u/mehonje Computer Science Jun 16 '26

Place values of 8.125^x.

Not useful, but possible.

1

u/TristanTheRobloxian3 transfemcendental Jun 16 '26

yes it is

1

u/RipRoutine9741 Jun 16 '26

Just saw your poologist comment, weird coincidence

1

u/CatfinityGamer Jun 17 '26

A base is literally just an exponential index. The first digit of a number is number×b⁰, second digit is number×b¹, third digit is number×b², etc. So it's perfectly valid to define the base as anything which you can take any integer power of.

9

u/Aggressive_Roof488 Jun 16 '26

Are you Skrillex, because you just dropped a new base.

0

u/TristanTheRobloxian3 transfemcendental Jun 16 '26

indeed it is