Proof: 1 = 2 (no division by zero!)

[Ronwue]

Fun thread even if the assumption is broken.

 

[TMAN10112]

I think the problem was that you didn't plug in 1 for the first eqation, if you plug in any number into that you are going to get the same number on both sides, when you plug in a number you have to do it befor you change anything.

 

[Limasol]

You don't need any knowledge of maths to understand that if ou have two of something then its not equal to half that amount of the same thing.

 

[Spleenbag]

You lost me at derivatives. Curse my Geometry-level education! Ah well, I've got years and years left to cram my brain full of Math goodness. Good job nonetheless; I was able to understand the rest.

 

[Clairaudient]

*head explodes*

I gotta stop coming into these math threads

*sees jim_doki's head explode*
*removes his cellular from his lifeless body*
*tabs down to Hot Stormtrooper Girl in the Number Directory*
*???*
*Profit!*

 

[Lord Krunk]

Guess what I learned in Math today?

• Log(S[sup]n[/sup])=(a/(1-r[sup]n[/sup]))(1-r)

Eg: Sum of Functions (S=/=Whole number, rounded to Asymptote)
5, 2.5, 1.25, 0.625, 0.3125...

S=(5/(1-(1/2)[sup]n[/sup])=Asymptote

Used for finding quadratic graphable functions from sets of organized numbers that increase or decrease, and finding the total sum thereof.

English, please?

 

[Copter400]

1=1. If I give you one glass, you do not possess more than one glass.

Math that cannot be applied to real life probably isn't of any use to humanity.

 

[smallharmlesskitten]

1=1. If I give you one glass, you do not possess more than one glass.

Math that cannot be applied to real life probably isn't of any use to humanity.

Unless you brought some glasses earlier

 

[Doug]

*head explodes*

I gotta stop coming into these math threads

2+2=4!

e^iQ = cos(Q) + i sin(Q)

 

[Logan Keller]

1=1. If I give you one glass, you do not possess more than one glass.

Math that cannot be applied to real life probably isn't of any use to humanity.

Unless you brought some glasses earlier

Why would you give him a glass if he had glasses already.

 

[smallharmlesskitten]

1=1. If I give you one glass, you do not possess more than one glass.

Math that cannot be applied to real life probably isn't of any use to humanity.

Unless you brought some glasses earlier

Why would you give him a glass if he had glasses already.

He wanted free glasses

 

[poleboy]

Go back to the XKCD forums ya damn math geek

Seriously though, I didn't get much of that. But the basic statement is wrong, no matter how you reach the conclusion. If you accept it as fact, you undermine the whole system you used to reach the conclusion.

 

[Logan Keller]

1=1. If I give you one glass, you do not possess more than one glass.

Math that cannot be applied to real life probably isn't of any use to humanity.

Unless you brought some glasses earlier

Why would you give him a glass if he had glasses already.

He wanted free glasses

Were they better glasses than what he had?

 

[mark_n_b]

1=1. If I give you one glass, you do not possess more than one glass.

Math that cannot be applied to real life probably isn't of any use to humanity.

That's not true, complicated mathematical analysis, i.e. proving mathematical points that cannot be applied to reality, has considerable value. It helps define rules of mathematics analysis (where you can use infinite variables) it shows us accurate vs. inaccurate tools in math, in a time when so much of the world is controlled by pure math (economics or games) what happens to numbers when put up against complex "equating" is very valuable to the maintenance of these systems.

As fun as this math riddle is, however:

The sum notation is the easiest way to see that (x+x+...x) still has an x dependence in the number of terms, which was mentioned earlier in this thread. As pointed out, the sum has a hidden x dependence, which has a nontrivial derivative; it's invalid to just take the derivative of the terms in the sum without also taking the derivative of the growth function of the sum, which is a function of x. Doing so would result in getting the derivative 2x again, exactly what you would expect.

its too bad, it was a good try. But doctorates are made on finding mathematic proof that 1=2, which is to say, discovering flaws in established systems of mathematics, it is not easy. If you are into this sort of thing though it's apparently very exciting.

 

[SmugFrog]

Stop it! Stop it before you destroy the entire forum and the destruction spreads throughout the internet!

 

[Logan Keller]

Stop it! Stop it before you destroy the entire forum and the destruction spreads throughout the internet!

You can only destroy the internet if you search Google in Google.

 

[Piemaster]

Whats with all the maths threads lately?

 

[Lukeje]

*head explodes*

I gotta stop coming into these math threads

2+2=4!

e^iQ = cos(Q) + i sin(Q)

2+2=/=4!, 4! = 4*3*2*1 = 24.


And the mistake the OP is making is that x^2 = 2xdx between the limits 0 and x, = (x + x + x + ... ), x times.
d(2xdx)/dx = 2x as req'd.

 

[Lukeje]

Note to others: I wrote the notation a little wrong, but (x + x + x + ...) implies a series, not specifically 3x. I should have done (x + x + x ... + x), my bad. The (x + x + x + ...) x times would mean that, say, if x = 4, it's (4 + 4 + 4 + 4), if x = 2 it's (2 + 2), etc.; it is, as you said, the number of x inside the parentheses. If I could put a sigma in there, it'd be a little easier; index function, you said, tktom?

Aww... you've actually given it away now because as you say if x=4 x^2= (4+4+4+4). However, if you were to take, for example x=-4 (a negative real number) this cannot possibly work because (-4-4-4-4)= -16 which isn't x^2 at all (though i suppose it could be ix^2, but then thats not real).

Therefore this means that the funtions cannot possibly be the same.

For a similar reason to my first paragraph, x= (1+1+1+1...+1) x times doesn't work either. (one of my friends tried to explain it like that to a first year and I so graciously corrected him)

Errm... you've made a mistake. He said 'x, x times'. You've written -4, 4 times. Not -4, -4 times.