Ever wondered what every average human thinks when looking at non-arithmetic M@H?

Now I challenge YOU to make the craziest possible math problem EVER!!!

Here are the rules:

No words: introductions, if-then's, assumptions, ... Exception: you may use words briefly for definitions, but make sure to MINIMIZE the usage - i.e. use math language instead where possible (# vs. number, etc.)

One part of the problem must be solvable by > 90% of the masses (such as 1+1=2)

Must be visually terrorizing

Must be mentally terrorizing

Post links below for your submissions of the craziest math problem. The contest will be judged by votes: majority rule. Downvotes allowed. I will post a congratulation note to the winner along with the link to the problem. Hopefully it will be powered by re-shares from the big boys (Calvin).

The contest begin today and ends August 1st.

\[\huge{\text{GO MAD-M@H CRAZY!!!}}\]

## Comments

Sort by:

TopNewest\(n\) is a positive non-zero integer. Solve for \(n\). Clues for this one can be found in one of my notes.

You may use a computer. – Michael Mendrin · 2 years ago

Log in to reply

– John Muradeli · 1 year, 11 months ago

Woops I past my deadline, lol. Apparently the only downvote you got was from me ^.^ Well, could you please provide me with the LaTeX of the problem, or is that its best rendering over there?Log in to reply

Michael Mendrin's Messageboard

To actually try to compute this expression, even with a computer and math software, is a fairly formidable task. – Michael Mendrin · 1 year, 11 months ago

Log in to reply

So, what do you think about my precious new VE about derivatives? – John Muradeli · 1 year, 11 months ago

Log in to reply

Given that it's not realistic for anyone to do my problem without first knowing its antecedents, I'd vote for yours. – Michael Mendrin · 1 year, 11 months ago

Log in to reply

– John Muradeli · 1 year, 11 months ago

3?!?!? LOOOL !!! My History & Government and Politics teacher always said the answer to all my math problems is 3 - because 3 is the magic number. WHO WOULD HAVE THOUGHT THAT I WOULD BE THE ONE TO FIND IT MOST USEFUL?! But yes I've heard from Numberphile how insanely hard it is to compute prime numbers - and since I'm clueless at number theory, I'll leave it at that ^.^ Sooo... did you get a chance to look at my new VE post?Log in to reply

Edit: Okay, see my first comments on this

VE

By the way, "VE" to someone like me means "Victory in Europe". I think one has to be really old to get this. – Michael Mendrin · 1 year, 11 months ago

Log in to reply

Not scary.

(Just my opinion ^.^) – John Muradeli · 2 years ago

Log in to reply

– Michael Mendrin · 2 years ago

Yours doesn't have much white space in the same way graffiti art doesn't leave much room for white space. But what do I know about art? It's just an opinion. Hoo-hah.Log in to reply

But... I can't promise my problem is harder if we remove the bottom-most fraction. Everything is simply simplification, that's all. Kk I'ma back away into my corner now... – John Muradeli · 2 years ago

Log in to reply

– Michael Mendrin · 2 years ago

Just wait until the next bell.Log in to reply

\[|x|<0\] – Julian Poon · 2 years ago

Log in to reply

The Construction of Spinors in Geometric Algebra

On pages 2 and 6, it speaks of vectors of negative norms. This is not an isolated instance. What makes this paper slightly different from most other papers on mathematical physics is that the construction of the relevant Clifford algebra for spinors

usesthe utility of vectors of negative norms. Most other physics papers that run into negative norms complain about how they keep cropping up like weeds, and they talk about how to get rid of them because they seem to suggest physical nonsense--like negative energy and negative distance. Kind of like how that black, sticky goo that sometimes came out of the ground back before the 19th century was considered to be an odious nuisance best to be gotten rid of. But, mathematically speaking, "negative norms" are not un-mathematical. – Michael Mendrin · 2 years agoLog in to reply

Though on the other hand I feel like I'm beyond this stuff and just feel intimidated by the notations or am just lazy ;p – John Muradeli · 2 years ago

Log in to reply

– Michael Mendrin · 2 years ago

Oh, don't think I read this stuff professionally. Who has the time, except the professionals themselves?Log in to reply

– Nihar Mahajan · 2 years ago

\(\color{white}{\text{Too scary! OMG! Save me!}}\)Log in to reply

You're onto something. – John Muradeli · 2 years ago

Log in to reply

– John Muradeli · 2 years ago

^.^Log in to reply

It must look crazier than this!:

Here is my submission (without math-speak). GO BEAT IT! – John Muradeli · 2 years ago

Log in to reply

– Ryan Tamburrino · 2 years ago

I'm still waiting for a solution to this problem!Log in to reply

But the moment I'm finding I'm flying straight over here! – John Muradeli · 2 years ago

Log in to reply

– Ryan Tamburrino · 2 years ago

The only thing that really throws me for a loop is that derivative of irrational order. Where can I learn more about that?Log in to reply

Pith Derivative

In fact, all but the bottom fraction are scattered throughout my profile. It's an easter egg hunt ^.^ – John Muradeli · 2 years ago

Log in to reply

Words taken away from math is just Kaboobly doo, like life taken away from a person would just be a bag of chemicals. The essence of mathematics is in its beauty and simplicity, not to scare the damn out of people.

Personally, I've no idea what joy a sane mathematician would get out of solving your problem – Agnishom Chattopadhyay · 2 years ago

Log in to reply

– John Muradeli · 2 years ago

The point is not to make it "right," or even elegant. The point is to make the most crazy-looking problem you can, so that it intimidates the neurons out of those who look at it (besides the math pros).Log in to reply

doodly-do badoodlydodololodoodo – John Muradeli · 2 years ago

Log in to reply

– Michael Mendrin · 2 years ago

I agree that what the world needs are sane mathematicians.Log in to reply