Thread: Solve these math problems

In the United States, there are several distinct types of mayors, depending on the system of local government. Under council-manager government, the mayor is a first among equals on the city council, analogous to a head of government for the city. He or she may chair the city council, but lacks any special legislative powers. The mayor and city council serve part-time, with day-to-day administration in the hands of a professional city manager. The system is most common among medium sized cities from around 25,000 to several hundred thousand, usually rural and suburban municipalities.

In the second form, known as mayor-council government, the mayoralty and city council are separate offices. Under a strong mayor system, the mayor acts as an elected executive with the city council functioning with legislative powers. She or he may select a chief administrative officer to oversee the different departments. This is the system used in most of the United States' large cities, primarily because mayors serve full time and have a wide range of services that they oversee. In a weak mayor or ceremonial mayor system, the mayor has appointing power for department heads but is subject to checks by the city council, sharing both executive and legislative duties with the council. This is common for smaller cities, especially in New England. Charlotte, North Carolina and Minneapolis, Minnesota are two notable large cities with a ceremonial mayor.

Many American mayors are styled “His/Her Honor” while in office, sometimes corrupted in jest to “Hizzoner,” especially in the tabloid press.

I find this interesting, because in larger cities the mayor has more power than in a smaller one, when I always thought it was the reverse.

ummmmm sorry blakeman, wrong thread. Did you perhaps mean to put this in the thread about the gov being fired or something?

Originally Posted by PBS_SRB

what are you talking about I didn't divide by zero, I just did the crossy outy thing, sheesh

The cross line thingie mean you subtracted (a-b) from both sides

You have 2(a-b)=(a-b)
2=1


However MY lousy ass math says...
2(a-b)=(a-b)
2(0)=0

or 0=0

Originally Posted by shoi

Originally Posted by PBS_SRB

So where'd I go wrong folks, or is the number system we base our world around horribly flawed


p.s. I hate calculus, I've hospitalized way too many limits. and don't ruin my little proof for others if you know the answer.

a-b=0

I saved that pic

Originally Posted by Glitch

Originally Posted by PBS_SRB

what are you talking about I didn't divide by zero, I just did the crossy outy thing, sheesh

The cross line thingie mean you subtracted (a-b) from both sides

You have 2(a-b)=(a-b)
2=1


However MY lousy ass math says...
2(a-b)=(a-b)
2(0)=0

or 0=0

Typically if not always, the crossing out or cancelling implies division, not subtraction.

If you wanted to subtract a-b from both sides you could, you'd just end up with

a-b = 0
which is nothing new.

But yeah I divided by zero.

in that notation it says he is dividing out. I am ashamed to admit it but I am having trouble finding the flaw.

Originally Posted by Potemkine

in that notation it says he is dividing out. I am ashamed to admit it but I am having trouble finding the flaw.

His statements are true IFF a=b=0.

Originally Posted by fisster

A non-pure state is expanded in the normalised eigenfunctions of the Hermitian operator ^G(g1, g2, g3, g4). ? is also normalised. ? = ag1 + bg2 + a/2(g3) + b/3(g4), the probability of observing the 3rd eigenstate is?

I should now in about 8 weeks.