Who TF Says This Is A Short Name?!?!?

Nothing says "serious mathematics" like illustrating your groundbreaking number theory paper with... *checks notes*... "A Strange Tractor." Mathematicians spent 358 years trying to prove Fermat's Last Theorem, and then Andrew Wiles comes along with farm equipment riding chaos theory curves. This is what happens when you let mathematicians have access to clip art after they've been staring at equations for too long. The tractor isn't even hauling the proof—it's just vibing on what appears to be a Lorenz attractor. Next breakthrough paper: "The Riemann Hypothesis: As Demonstrated By My Cat Wearing Sunglasses."

The ultimate mathematical self-burn! Using algebra to express how useless algebra is might be the most ironic flex in the history of mathematics. It's like writing a strongly-worded letter to literacy complaining that you never learned to read. The beautiful paradox here is that you'd need to understand the variable 'n' to get why this joke is funny, thereby proving algebra's value in the very act of dismissing it. Somewhere, a math professor is either crying or slow-clapping.

This is mathematical recursion at its finest! Someone brilliantly created a meta-joke where each post contains screenshots of previous posts, with the number of required upvotes following the Fibonacci sequence (1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8...). It's basically a mathematical meme that's reproducing itself exactly like the sequence it references! The genius part? By day 4, they're asking for 3 upvotes (following 1, 1, 2, 3...), and each post contains nested images of all previous posts - creating a visual representation of the sequence's recursive nature. It's like watching math come alive through internet karma farming! And that statue of Fibonacci watching his sequence play out in digital form? *Chef's kiss* The perfect backdrop for this mathematical inception!

Content If the proof of a theorem is not immediately apparent, it may be because you are trying the wrong approach. Below are some effective methods of proof that might aim you in the right direction. Proof by obviousness: "The proof is so clear that it need not be mentioned." Proof by general agreement: "All in favor?.. Proof by imagination: "Well, we'll pretend it's true. Proof by convenience: "It would be very nice if it were true, so.. Proof by necessity: "It had better be true, or the entire structure of mathematics would crumble to the ground." Proof by plausibility: "It sounds good, so it must be true." Proof by intimidation: "Don't be stupid; of course it's true!" Proof by lack of sufficient time: "Because of the time constrait, I'lI leave the proof to you." Proof by postponement: "The proof for this is long and arduous, so it is given to you in the appendix." Proof by accident: "Hey, what have we here?!" Proof by insignificance: "Who really cares anyway?" Proof by mumbo-jumbo: Wo ф, 3,830*8=8, Proof by profanity: (example omitted) Proof by definition: "We define it to be true.! Proof by tautology: "It's true because it's true." Proof by plagarism: "As we see on page 289,..." Proof by lost reference: "I know I saw it somewhere....' Proof by calculus: "This proof requires calculus, so we'll skip it." Proof by terror: When intimidation fails Proof by lack of interest: "Does anyone really want to see this?" Proof by illegibility: E GED Proof by logic: "If it is on the problem sheet, it must be true!" Proof by majority rule: Only to be used if general agreement is impossible. Proof by clever variable choice: "Let A be the number such that this proof works.." Proof by tessellation: "This proof is the same as the last." Proof by divine word: " And the Lord said, 'Let it be true, and it was true Proof by stubbornness: "I don't care what you say- it is true." Proof by simplification: "This proof reduced to the statement I + 1 = 2." Proof by hasty generalization: "Well, it works for 17, so it works for all reals." Proof by deception: "Now everyone turn their backs. Proof by supplication: "Oh please, let it be true. Proof by poor analogy: "Well, it's just like...' Proof by avoidance: Limit of proof by postponement as it approaches infinity Proof by design: If it's not true in today's math, invent a new system in which it is. Proof by authority: "Well, Don Knuth says it's true, so it must be!" Proof by intuition: "I have this gut feeling.

Who needs relationship drama when you can experience the PURE ECSTASY of solving a differential equation?! That moment when all your variables separate perfectly and you find the elegant solution? *chef's kiss* It's basically mathematical orgasm! Relationships come and go, but the rush of integrating both sides correctly? ETERNAL JOY, my friends! Some people chase lovers, but the real ones chase that sweet, sweet constant of integration. Dating apps? Pfft! Give me a notebook full of second-order equations any day!

The physicist works with imaginary numbers (√-1 = i), the chemist works with chemical elements (√-23 and Ir-77, which don't actually exist), and together they "prove" that 23=77. Meanwhile, the mathematician is having an existential crisis because this mathematical atrocity violates everything sacred in their universe. This is basically what happens when experimental sciences try to do math without adult supervision. Pure mathematicians spend years developing rigorous proofs, and then physicists and chemists just waltz in with their "close enough" approximations and wonder why mathematicians develop eye twitches.