Ok, atheists, I finally found a flaw in your "infallible" math, proving the word of G-d exceeds your worldly conceits.
Ok, atheists, I finally found a flaw in your "infallible" math, proving the word of G-d exceeds your worldly conceits
Other urls found in this thread:
en.wikipedia.org
wolframalpha.com
twitter.com
third step dumbass.
Fourth step to fifth step.
1/-1 = -1 , not 1/i
smdh
The square root in the complex plane isn't that easy. Look it up.
ITT nobody can provide a clear refutation.
i cant read boohoo: the post
plus minus square root fool
In the final row :
1 X 1 = 1
also
-1 X -1 = 1
so no problem there
or to clarify
sqrt(1) = sqrt(1)
1 = -1
wow so amgic
-1/1 is -1 you retards
sqrt(x/y) is not the same as sqrt(x)/sqrt(y)
Proof:
sqrt(9/4) = sqrt(2.25) = 0.375
sqrt(9) / sqrt(4) = 3/2 = 1.5
Therefore the transition from fourth to fifth step is invalid.
The error exists in the 4th to 5th line. The square root of any negative number x is defined as such:
sqrt(-x) = (i)sqrt(x)
thus,
sqrt(-1/1) = (i)sqrt(1/1)
AND
sqrt(1/-1) = (i)sqrt(1/1)
Thus both sides of the equation in step 5 equal i.
ITT: OP can't do math.
You start trolling in the 4th and 5th rows
Actually, its -2 = 4²
Prove me wrong
Answer is here
Also, there's no such thing like "infallible math".
When science shows a fail, scientist dont cry "heresy! " and killing the one whom found it.
That's how we go from natural numbers, to complex numbers, pasing by entires, rational irational and so on.
do you really think that 0.375*0.375=2.25?
>sqrt(2.25) = 0.375
Nice bait.
Tits or gtfo
>Also, there's no such thing like "infallible math".
uhh but you're wrong user
1 X 1 = (-1) X (-1) = 1
2 X 2 = (-2) X (-2) = 4
3 X 3 = (-3) X (-3) = 9
An so.
Where is the magic?
yeah this bullshit happens when you fuck around with i=sqrt(-1).
learn some math and understand, that i^2 = -1 and not i=sqrt(-1), which is undefined and meaningles bullshit.
You truly don't understand complex numbers. Just fucking quit.
roots always have positive and negative solutions, there is nothing wrong in here. It works for every number, if you take root there are +/- solutions.
25 = 25
5^2 = -5^2
5 = -5
It just doesnt make sense to put in in an equation if you dont solve for anything. Mathgod is sick of your shit
When you find a inconsistence in science you just make a new research using new evidence.
Thats how knowledge increases data, you dont just asume you are right, you think you are right, and research more when you are wrong
i study math and understand them faggot. i=sqrt(-1) is bullshit some engineers and schoolkids like to use but no rigorous math
no. a root √a is by definition alsways positive.
you're mixing this up with the two solutions of an eqatuion like x^2 = a
step 6 to 7, you are squaring both sides, so the right hand side should be
(1/i)^2 = (1^2)/(i^2) = 1/-1 = -1
science =/= math
he multiplies with i, not squaring both sides.
the error is here: sqrt(--1) doesn't make any sense and it leads to such a shit.
if you want to handle complex numbers rigorous, you use i^2=-1 and nothing else
And thats why after many years I still browse Sup Forums, besides porn, gore, racism and lolcats
√1 = ±1, not just 1.
there is no definition like that, there are some fields where you throw the negative one cause its useless/invalid. In general roots of always have 2 solutions, so thats what happens here.
thank you sir, time for a prayer call anyway
You're confused. x^2=y gives positive and negative answers for x.
root(x)=y doesn't
i = -1
FUCK YOU
A result like -1=1 simply means that you fucked up somewhere in the process.
on step three they are both -1
so if you sqaure root both sides you get i on both sides not i and 1/i
thanks for pointing that out
would a definition like sqrt(-1) = ±i work?
for all those who are dumb as shit
You obviously don't understand them then you absolute retard, i=rt(-1) is the definition of i. Complex numbers are VERY useful eg. In high level physics or the reinmann hypothesis; the most pressing mystery of maths today, are both based around them. So no there no just some bs for school kids it's just that you're mentally deficient.
when you ratify an equation and reduce it, it doesn't mean that you got the correct answer. you would know this if you tried that shit on a trig test then lost points b/c the answer isn't 0.
>Third step indeed.
Go back to highschool faggot.
no, that one's fine
rt(X/y) = rt(X)/rt(y) only applies when X and y are positive and here lies your problem
Quaternions are used to rotate vectors in 3d space and for spherical and linear interpolation. It also perfectly describes the behaviors of A/C voltages and currents.
imaginary numbers is a terrible name for them.
/thread
>6th equality to 7th
squaring both sides, (1/i)^2 should be (1^2)/(i^2) which equals 1/-1 which equals -1
Why not use some better flaws in mathematics?
Try the Burali Forti Paradox, Godel's Incompleteness Theorems, the consistency of both the Axiom of Choice and its negation, ex falso quodlibet, etc.
There are real flaws in mathematics. You don't need to look for fake ones.
Doesn't matter, if they're equivalent you should be able to work or ward with either
Ill admit Im not the best at math so can someone explain how you turn -1/1 into 1/-1? Or is that the flaw?
-1/1
= -1/1 * 1
= -1/1 * (-1/-1)
= (-1*-1)/(1*-1)
= 1/-1
It doesn't actually matter if the negative is in the numerator or denominator just conventional to throw it in the front which implies its multiplying across the top
1 divided by -1 equals -1
-1 divided by 1 equals -1
kek. sqrt-fkt is not holomorphic on entire C. It only works on C_ .
Thanks, that makes mathematical sense to me now I see the -1/-1, I wasn't thinking that before
No its just that when he takes roots and separates them top and bottom of the fraction, that can only be applied to positive roots so instead he should've factorised out rt(-1) to give i*rt1=i*rt1 and gotten i=i
i/1 =/= 1/i
You can't just say i/1=1/i
i != i/1
i/1 would be (1+0i)/(0+i) which equals -i
Yeah because you can't take the square root of a fraction with a negative denominator so it would have to be -1/1 and therefore both sides would be i correct?
1/I = -i
I thought it failed because the square root is multi-valued
Being holomorphic doesn't exclude being multi-valued, does it?
yeah but this happened after he fucked up
Oh no! OP found the flaw in atheist existence! Here comes the Rapture! Ahhhh!
You can say rt(1/-1) but you can't then say =rt(1)/rt(-1), similarly you can't say for rt(-1/1)= rt(-1)/rt(1) despite the fact that in this case it works because the rule rt(x/y)=rt(X)/rt(y) only applies where X and y are positive real numbers or are both negative real numbers
>i