Home Archives Random Quotes Latest Comments Top 100 Submit Quote Search Log In Forums

Quote# 1627

['What's the square root of -1?']

One

Nutrider99, Free Conservatives 25 Comments [7/18/2005 12:00:00 AM]
Fundie Index: -7
WTF?! || meh
Username:
Comment:



1
#252
Rime

Actually, it's an \"imaginary\" number, but I'll just let Nutrider have that one because Christians(TM) know everything.

7/19/2005 1:46:01 AM

#255
Crosis

Not really a FStDT-worthy quote, IMO. But still amusing.

7/19/2005 1:55:06 AM

#268
David

This probably isn't that funny by itself. However it is much funnier after seeing how arrogant and condescending Nutrider was being while discussing math.

7/19/2005 11:53:27 AM

#290
Crosis

If it weren't for the fact that I'd have to go to that hellhole of a forum to do it, I'd have a field day with this guy if he likes to \"argue\" mathematics. Just happens to be one of my specialties.

7/20/2005 4:03:24 AM

#615700


This isn't fundie. Just plain stupid.

8/5/2008 3:39:35 PM

#658139
clockworkgirl21

I couldn't tell you the square root of -1. I'm HORRIBLE at math.

8/29/2008 4:58:03 AM

#854019
Kitourahime

My maths teacher?

Yeah, he....He wants a word with you.

1/16/2009 1:48:32 PM

#854106
Mr. Creazil

Not fundie.

Incidentally, the answer is i.

1/16/2009 2:58:31 PM

#854158
Professor M

There's actually a fairly strong math-wanker trend within contemporary American fundamentalism (especially the extreme homeschooler variety). A large number of fundies reject set theory on religious grounds...though I'm still not sure what they're smoking with that. It wouldn't surprise me if some of them refuse to teach their kids the concept of an "imaginary number".


1/16/2009 3:34:12 PM

#854192
Grigadil

If you have a negative IQ, -1 = 1, so the nutrider has a valid argument.

1/16/2009 3:55:06 PM

#878252
aaa

Ouch.

2/2/2009 10:17:41 AM

#981065
kat

So i = 1?

7/3/2009 5:43:38 PM

#981451
P

fwiw, there is a mathematical "disproof" of god using set theory. It is possible fundies have a thing with set theory because of philosophical arguments like that. They're also likely to reject anything they can't understand, which is likely to be a lot of math.

7/4/2009 3:59:25 PM

#1235209
PiGirl13

No, it's i, an imaginary number.

It's like I always say: Fundies are like the square root of 2, and their god is like the square root of -1.

12/15/2010 5:58:46 PM

#1235248
radda

I hadnt heard about that particular math thingy before :o

Am I a fundie now? :<

12/15/2010 8:05:56 PM

#1251728
Canama

You failed Algebra II, didn't you?

2/1/2011 8:11:23 PM

#1251752
David F Mayer

It is informative to see that your ignorance is not limited to the empirical sciences, but extends to Mathematics as well. You are a PERFECT ignoramus. Congratulations, perfection is rare.

2/1/2011 10:11:18 PM

#1251756
GigaGuess

Uhhhhh...okay, he's bad at math. How is this fundie?

@kat
A square cannot be a negative, as a square is a number multiplied by itself. To get -1, you must multiply 1 by -1, so the answer to this question is an imaginary number, noted by i.

2/1/2011 10:32:23 PM

#1251769
Anon

>>P

fwiw, there is a mathematical "disproof" of god using set theory. <<

Said "disproof" is not really valid, since it requires a few assumptions and depends critically on your definition of "god". Perhaps we should teach everyone set theory so that they know what they are objecting to.

2/2/2011 12:21:34 AM

#1251888
Tempus

Mathematics fail.

2/2/2011 8:41:34 AM

#1251939
rw23

I think we have to bear in mind the possibility that Nutrider99 overlooked the minus sign, thinking it was just another example of standard fundie misuse of punctuation.

2/2/2011 11:21:14 AM

#1253065
P

I'm surprised no-one has commented that Andy Schlafly of Conservapedia does indeed deny the validity of imaginary numbers for some unstated reason. Very weird!

With fundies anything is possible!

P.

2/5/2011 7:03:04 PM

#1253074
Reynagade

Oh man... So much fail in that thread



Not to mention he stated that: -1*-1 = -1

2/5/2011 7:49:16 PM

#1312145
Apatheist

Actually, it's i. Or imaginary.

7/20/2011 12:40:08 PM

#1339714
Kuyohashi

Haha, up yers, buddy! According to my calculator, the correct answer is 'Invalid Input for Function'!

10/11/2011 3:01:16 PM
1