|
Nah, she didn't day "damn", she said "f......". 
|
|
|
|
|
The error begins from first assumptions -- saying 1=1 at the beginning is meaningless; everthing following can provide no additional insight.
a²-a² and a-a are always zero, but this is due to the nonsense above that -- in particular, while a²-a²=a²-a² may be true, it doesn't follow from a²=a².
The idiot of a Discrete Math teacher I had in college tried showing this to the class once. 
|
|
|
|
|
 As I know mathematics doesn't approve 0=0
so, the error is a²-a²=a²-a² (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
a-c = b-c ?
a-a = a-a (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.
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
very very TRUE
|
|
|
|
|
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 big-note 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(a-a) = (a+a)(a-a) // divide by (a-a), i.e. divide by 0
a = a+a
Division by zero is a no-no 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 ??
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
