Can you prove 1 = 2?
- Thread starter secondeye
- Start date
I loved that class. Idk why, but it was so crazy and interesting.
I hated and sucked at almost all other math classes though.
ok guys let me give a faster proof:
infinity = infinity
1 * infinity = 2 * infinity
1 = 2 * infinity / infinity
1 = 2.
QED
oops, sorry division by infinity.
infinity = infinity
1 * infinity = 2 * infinity
1 = 2 * infinity / infinity
1 = 2.
QED
oops, sorry division by infinity.
final piece in my series, let me prove 3=1.
there was Jesus, his father God and the Spiritus Sanctus. And they were all one.
So 3=1
QED
there was Jesus, his father God and the Spiritus Sanctus. And they were all one.
So 3=1
QED
Don't think you can prove this. If I remember right from my math courses before most of you were born this was actually a trick that our professor had us work on for a week to fuck with us.
Could be wrong - it's been like 20 years.
Could be wrong - it's been like 20 years.
And how about explaining how three posts should equal one post, and then taking your explanation and applying it to the next time you decide to triple post three of the same amount of immense shit?
This thread fails so hard at teh maths.
And since nobody has addressed this one:
sq(-1) is that squiggly little i you were talking about. It's called i.
And it's not equal to one (see bold).
And since nobody has addressed this one:
sq(-1) is that squiggly little i you were talking about. It's called i.
And it's not equal to one (see bold).
It's a flaw that you can't divide by zero?
Being able to divide by zero would wreck, uh, pretty much everything.
Some of that stuff may be partially true for irrational numbers, but most would fall in the set of non-real(imaginary) numbers where you can divide by zero and have numbers like sqrt(-1); we haven't really discovered enough about that set to make practical use of them. Also, some infinities are larger than others and you can't treat them like variables and do operations on them.
Here is the problem- you really can't try to make proofs like this without defining the domain. Also, every line where an operation is performed to produce an equivalent statement should be justified with an established law. Some of them might seem obvious (most can be done with basic properties of arithmetic), but it would stop most bullshit proofs after 2 or 3 lines and get you really good grades in discrete math and most other math classes as well.
Here is the problem- you really can't try to make proofs like this without defining the domain. Also, every line where an operation is performed to produce an equivalent statement should be justified with an established law. Some of them might seem obvious (most can be done with basic properties of arithmetic), but it would stop most bullshit proofs after 2 or 3 lines and get you really good grades in discrete math and most other math classes as well.
No, it's a flaw in Algebra. The equation works perfectly in Algebra, it's when you put numbers in that it doesn't work i.e. Algebra is flawed so doesn't work
I'm not sure I understand you. Let's take this back to a middle-school math level.
Variables represent numbers, yes? So when you say:
You're saying that when you apply concrete values to a variable and that results in a divide by zero error, that's a flaw in algebra?
That's not a flaw, that's how it should work. If we could divide by zero using variables whenever we wanted, that would violate the basic axiom that we can't divide by zero as a concrete number.
¿Entiendes?