Scikidus had the idea for the image, and I’m just throwing out some other versions:
I *so* know how I’m teaching imaginary numbers to my classes this year.
(via To Whom I May Concern)
That’s so clever!
here’s a proof i stole and adopted to my own purposes.
multiply by godx*god=god*god
divide by (god-x)x=god+x
subtract x0=god or god=0
therefore god does not exist
Lol, math humour’s the best.
Except imaginary numbers are, in fact, useful.
@ Tim: Ah, yes, the old “divide by zero” trick. The theists try that, too. They should leave “god” in the numerator of multiplication problems, only. And I’ve seen it where the “imaginary” numbers were used against atheists. Nice trick! Some of them must be electrical engineers working on the power distribution grid. Take the electrical power feed away from any theist who doesn’t “believe in” imaginary numbers! Rotten fish and moldy bread result….
“i are the square root of -1″,
“i am the square root of -1″, or
“i am that i am the square root of -1″?
@Tim Can one plug anything into that equation? Landlords? Ex-girlfriends? Tiny yipping dogs who won’t shut up in the night when I’m needing to get up for work the next day?
Hmm. Let x=flufftard…
Can you also represent the square root of god as a fraction? No, that would be irrational.
Proof that god is not perfect.
God is indivisible. yet, in order to be perfect God would need to be the sum of its proper positive divisors.
I just noticed tonight that Planet Atheist often aggregates the recent blog posts in groups of 66 (# of books in the Bible).
I’m reminded of a piece Azimov wrote about
trying to convince one of his teachers that
1/2 is no less “imaginary” (in the ordinary
everyday sense of the word) than i.
He challenged the teacher to give him half
a piece of chalk. The teacher promptly
broke a piece of chalk in two and handed
Azimov one of the two pieces. 😎
“The Imaginary That Isn’t”, The Magazine of Fantasy & Science Fiction, March 1961. Reprinted in Asimov on Numbers.
The teacher asked Asimov to hand him sqrt(-1) pieces of chalk. Asimov made the above challenge in reply.
What exactly does the modulus of a purely imaginary god tell us?
Wouldn’t teaching this in class be hypocritical and also potentially a violation of the First Amendment (although atheism =/= religion, I could foresee arguments).
Not that I thought you were serious.
OK, I’m confused. Obviously this is not saying that God is pure imaginary, because the complex numbers are not an ordered field, and hence less-than doesn’t make sense.
So what’s it actually saying?
Surely not that God is timelike rather than to spacelike. This has interesting theological implications, but most people who write on the topic seem to agree that God is not bound by spacetime.
I like the new versions. I just thought this up a few days ago, and thought it would be nice to share it with the world. I didn’t think it would be noticed so quickly!
Actually, some of the comments in this thread have given me another idea. To Photoshop!