Welcome to the Lounge
For lazing about and discussing anything in a software developer's life that takes your fancy.
The Lounge is rated PG. If you're about to post something you wouldn't want your kid sister to read then don't post it. No flame wars, no abusive conduct and please don't post ads.
Technical discussions are welcome, but if you need specific help please
ask your question here.



As I know mathematics doesn't approve 0=0
so, the error is a²a²=a²a² (meaning 0=0)
exactly it is a teacher who showed it to us.





It has nothing to do with 0 equal to 0 or not (which is a mathematical game only), but the fact that division by zero is not permitted (or more precisely the outcome is undefined)...
Skipper: We'll fix it.
Alex: Fix it? How you gonna fix this?
Skipper: Grit, spit and a whole lotta duct tape.





Yes, but the damage is done before that.





You mean, when OP went to learn math?
Skipper: We'll fix it.
Alex: Fix it? How you gonna fix this?
Skipper: Grit, spit and a whole lotta duct tape.





1=1
a=a <=> a/a=1
a²=a² ??
a=b <=> a/b=1
a²=b² ??
then
a=b
ac = bc ?
aa = aa (assuming a=b and a=c) ??
Where is the division by zero ? I've added c at both sides of =





At the final step, you effectively have a=0 , which means that a/a=1 on the second line is division by zero.
But why were b and c introduced? It's just nonsense.
Additionally, a²=b² certainly does not mean a=b .





a=0 never means a/a=0 (a can never be 0).
a=a <=> a/a=a/a <=> 1=1
I could fix the post as :
Given a C ];0[ U ]0;++[ (meaning 0 excluded)





Which means that you have an equation system and not a single equation...It's a different thing to solve...
Skipper: We'll fix it.
Alex: Fix it? How you gonna fix this?
Skipper: Grit, spit and a whole lotta duct tape.





tayoufabrice wrote: Where is the error ?
In between your ears: obviously the answer is 42.






a  a = 0
You cannot get anything useful from a multiplication once it has involved a zero term.
5 x 0 = 12012 x 0
does not mean that
5 = 12012
There are two kinds of people in the world: those who can extrapolate from incomplete data.






The error is simultaneously in line 5, your misunderstanding of basic maths, and your posting of this question.





The error is I haven't had coffee yet.
New version: WinHeist Version 2.1.0
There's a fine line between crazy and free spirited and it's usually a prescription.
I'm currently unsupervised, I know it freaks me out too but the possibilities are endless.






welcome to the lounge. I know this isn't quite your first post  but nearly. And I would like to apologise for the negativity your post received.
For someone who hadn't seen that 'proof' before it may have been interesting  as you can see, not only have the majority here seen it (more than once!) but they like to stuff it down your throat  whether to bignote themselves or simply in an attempt to belittle you we cannot tell.
They should be ashamed.
Merry Xmas
PooperPig  Coming Soon





Thank you Max and happy new Xear





How about this...
Start with this:
1/9 = 1/9
Then convert one side to decimal equivalent (which is infinitely recurring)
1/9 = 0.11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111...(etc etc)
Then multiply both sides by nine
1 = 0.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999...(etc etc)
Therefore, 1 is equal to 0.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999...(where the 9's are in infinite recursion).
And yes, this actually is mathematically correct.





I agree but here
1/9 = 0.111111111111111111111111......
is not really true ;
we lost 0.000000000000000000000.......9
I could write
1/9~= 0.111111111111111111111111......
then
1 ~= 0.9999999999999999999999999......
??





tayoufabrice wrote: 1/9 = 0.111111111111111111111111......
is not really true ;
we lost 0.000000000000000000000.......9
Wish I could agree, but I can't... read all about it[^]
Even google 0.999999999999999 = 1[^] if you're still unconvinced.





Ah là là Mathematics !!
(French laughing)





a(aa) = (a+a)(aa) // divide by (aa), i.e. divide by 0
a = a+a
Division by zero is a nono because it can lead to "impossible" results like the above.





I could fix the post as :
Given a C ];0[ U ]0;++[ (meaning 0 excluded)
Now ??





The value of a is irrelevant; a  a == 0, and factoring out a  a is division by 0, which is forbidden.
I am not a mathematician, so I don't know if it is possible to create a selfconsistent arithmetic in which division by 0 does not result in nonsensical results. All I know is that in the arithmetic I learnt in school it is forbidden.








General News Suggestion Question Bug Answer Joke Rant Admin
Use Ctrl+Left/Right to switch messages, Ctrl+Up/Down to switch threads, Ctrl+Shift+Left/Right to switch pages.