| Author |
Message |
|
alexrudd
pm me if you read this
Bandwidth Hog
Joined: 06 Oct 2004
Posts: 2335
|
 Posted: 26 Mar 2007 09:23:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
[quote name='Ti-Ho' date='Mar 26 2007, 04:50 PM']Here's another one:
p/q=√(2) [post="99502"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/quote]Ho-hum. You just violated a rule that can be found in a seventh-grade math book. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Recursive Acronym
Advanced Member
Joined: 11 Dec 2006
Posts: 499
|
| Posted: 26 Mar 2007 09:57:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
[quote name='Ti-Ho' date='Mar 26 2007, 04:50 PM']p/q=q/r
p=r
[post="99502"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/quote]
This step seems invalid. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
WikiGuru
ADOS (Attention deficit... Oh! Shiny!)
Elite
Joined: 15 Sep 2005
Posts: 923
|
| Posted: 26 Mar 2007 10:27:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Quote: Ho-hum. You just violated a rule that can be found in a seventh-grade math book.
That's the trick.
Quote: Quote:
p/q=q/r
p=r
This step seems invalid.
oops, my mistake.
p/q=√(2)
p2/q2=2
p2=2q2
p=2r
(2r)2=2q2
2r=√(2)q
r/q=2/√(2)
r/q=√(2)
p/q=r/q
p=r
2r=r
2=1
Last edited by Guest on 27 Mar 2007 05:56:21 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Recursive Acronym
Advanced Member
Joined: 11 Dec 2006
Posts: 499
|
| Posted: 28 Mar 2007 09:14:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
alexrudd wrote: [quote name='Ti-Ho' date='Mar 26 2007, 04:50 PM']Here's another one:
p/q=?(2) [post="99502"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post] Ho-hum. You just violated a rule that can be found in a seventh-grade math book.
[post="99529"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]
[/quote]
What rule are you taking about?
[quote name='Ti-Ho' date='Mar 26 2007, 09:27 PM']2r=?(2)q
r/q=2/?(2)
[post="99531"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/quote]
Another invalid step. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
alexrudd
pm me if you read this
Bandwidth Hog
Joined: 06 Oct 2004
Posts: 2335
|
| Posted: 28 Mar 2007 09:58:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Irrational numbers such as 2^(.5) cannot, by definition, be written as the quotient of two numbers. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Weregoose
Authentic INTJ
Super Elite (Last Title)
Joined: 25 Nov 2004
Posts: 3976
|
| Posted: 28 Mar 2007 10:45:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
alexrudd wrote: Irrational numbers such as 2^(.5) cannot, by definition, be written as the quotient of two numbers. p and q need not be integers. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kevicorp
Newbie
Joined: 06 Mar 2007
Posts: 3
|
| Posted: 29 Mar 2007 10:01:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
This one defies everything I have ever learned including 2+2=4.
a²+b²=c² ;Pythagorean Theorem
4a²-3a²+4b²-3b²=4c²-3c² ;Regrouping
4a²+4b²-4c²=3a²+3b²-3c² ;More regrouping
4(a²+b²-c²)=3(a²+b²-3c²) ;Distributive Property
4=3 ;Divide by (a²+b²-c²)
If this is true 2+2=3.
(Of course a²+b²-c²=0 which would actually produce an undefined answer because of the last step dividing by 0) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
IAmACalculator
In a state of quasi-hiatus
Know-It-All
Joined: 21 Oct 2005
Posts: 1571
|
| Posted: 29 Mar 2007 04:40:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
@Alexrudd: √(2)/1
Maybe this topic should be merged with [topic="5057"]this other one[/topic]. It's quickly turning into the same discussion all over again. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kevicorp
Newbie
Joined: 06 Mar 2007
Posts: 3
|
| Posted: 30 Mar 2007 10:13:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Maybe it should. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Weregoose
Authentic INTJ
Super Elite (Last Title)
Joined: 25 Nov 2004
Posts: 3976
|
| Posted: 30 Mar 2007 03:17:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Done, and moved to Math and Science. Would you like fries to go with that?
Last edited by Guest on 30 Mar 2007 03:17:33 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DarkerLine
ceci n'est pas une |
Super Elite (Last Title)
Joined: 04 Nov 2003
Posts: 8328
|
| Posted: 30 Mar 2007 03:21:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Here's a calculus proof that 1=2:
d/dx(x2)=2x
d/dx(x+x+...+x (x times))=2x
d/dx(x) + d/dx(x) + ... + d/dx(x) (x times)=2x
1 + 1 + ... + 1 (x times)=2x
x=2x
1=2 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Delnar_Ersike
Lazy H4xx0r
Active Member
Joined: 24 Dec 2006
Posts: 578
|
| Posted: 30 Mar 2007 07:22:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Quote: x=2x
1=2
Here's the anti-proof:
x=2x
0=x
so dividing by x in the last step is invalid.
Hah, I'm so young I'm not even in high school... 
Last edited by Guest on 30 Mar 2007 07:24:07 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Arcane Wizard
`semi-hippie`
Super Elite (Last Title)
Joined: 02 Jun 2003
Posts: 8993
|
| Posted: 30 Mar 2007 07:50:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
No number in front of x means 1x, not 0x.
And you already know the equations are faulty because they result in 2=1. Which is false.
Last edited by Guest on 30 Mar 2007 07:54:28 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Delnar_Ersike
Lazy H4xx0r
Active Member
Joined: 24 Dec 2006
Posts: 578
|
| Posted: 31 Mar 2007 10:32:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
Quote: No number in front of x means 1x, not 0x.
x=2x
-x -x
0=x |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
WikiGuru
ADOS (Attention deficit... Oh! Shiny!)
Elite
Joined: 15 Sep 2005
Posts: 923
|
| Posted: 31 Mar 2007 10:50:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
So? All you get is this:
0=2*0
0=0
This is a true statement. In fact, it's easily proven:
y=x
y=2x
Where do these two lines intersect? at x=0
Edit: Oh, I see what you were trying to do
Last edited by Guest on 31 Mar 2007 11:01:21 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DarkerLine
ceci n'est pas une |
Super Elite (Last Title)
Joined: 04 Nov 2003
Posts: 8328
|
| Posted: 31 Mar 2007 11:42:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
Ok fine, I'll change it.
...
x=2x
x=0 (for any x)
By specification, 2=0, and 1=0. So 1=2.
You're looking at the wrong step for problems...
Last edited by Guest on 31 Mar 2007 11:43:32 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Arcane Wizard
`semi-hippie`
Super Elite (Last Title)
Joined: 02 Jun 2003
Posts: 8993
|
| Posted: 31 Mar 2007 01:10:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Delnar_Ersike wrote: Quote: No number in front of x means 1x, not 0x.
x=2x
-x -x
0=x
[post="99821"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]
You are saying dividing by x cannot be applied to x=2x but it can, that the resulting equation is false is obviously because x isn't 2x to begin with, not because either side can't be divided by x.
To judge the validity of dividing x or 2x by x from the resulting equation means substracting x from either is equally flawed, as it's result is also invalid.
Like DarkerLine said, it's an earlier step that is faulty. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
WikiGuru
ADOS (Attention deficit... Oh! Shiny!)
Elite
Joined: 15 Sep 2005
Posts: 923
|
| Posted: 31 Mar 2007 03:50:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| The only point that x=2x is at x=0. So dividing by x would be the same as dividing by 0. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DarkerLine
ceci n'est pas une |
Super Elite (Last Title)
Joined: 04 Nov 2003
Posts: 8328
|
| Posted: 31 Mar 2007 03:51:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I never said I was dividing by x. Maybe I was substituting x=1, giving you a specific case (1=2) of the general statement I proved for all x (x=2x).
Last edited by Guest on 31 Mar 2007 03:53:10 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Arcane Wizard
`semi-hippie`
Super Elite (Last Title)
Joined: 02 Jun 2003
Posts: 8993
|
| Posted: 31 Mar 2007 05:12:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| You can't prove x=2x for all x. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
Math and Science => Technology & Calculator Open Topic
