1+1=3, this is just wrong

1+1=3, this is just wrong.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=dtJtN97YDEM
twitter.com/AnonBabble

science is always wrong, idiot.

>scientifically illiterate retard mongoloid who is using a magical device, that wouldnt exist without science, to post his stupid backwards opinions on the internet
Is this you OP?

math itself is confusing. you can make 1 = 0, so why not 1+1=3
if x=y
then x - y + y = y

(x-y+y)/(x-y)=y/(x-y)

1+(y/(x-y))=(y/(x-y))

1=0

Someone failed pre-calc.

you have obviously posted your opinion in the wrong thread user. I pretty sure you looking for a trap thread or a roll thread. I think they suite your narrative better.

No, because if x=y then x-y=0. And you can't divide by zero... you simply can't

>Not knowing the difference between a theory and a hypothesis
What are you, twelve?

If x=y then x-y=0
You can't divide by zero you moron

you guiez remind me when I was young. to be so callous

Bad b8, I r8 9/11

>religion is retarded
>Believing God made everything from nothing just like that.
>Fuckin retards got no proofs
>nah not science though
>we smart n sheit
> Big Bang everything come from nothing.
>proof? Nah just theory fam fuck it I know

>You can't divide by zero
Technically, you can. It make infinite, unless you divide zero by zero, so, in this case it makes math funny.

Triggered lol

>If math was taught like science
Math is Science, morron

Let us suppose that your assertion is true and let "b" be a real number. That gives
>b/0=infinity
>b=infinity*0
But infinity multiplied by zero is not defined by definition. The same with zero multiplied by zero.

You can't divide by zero you stupid fuck.

Oh, you mean common core?

In the beginning there was nothing, and for no reason whatsoever that nothing exploded. But not a giant fireball, it exploded into all these diverse living things with complex biology etc.

Same concept, Different religion.

You can divide by 0
Go learn complex analysis

You are assuming 0/0 = 1 before doing the demonstration. The only things this proves is that you're retarded

This is not complex analysis they are talking about, this is normal arithmetic. Follow the thread...
>checked

More like, if math was taught the way that Republicans want to teach science.

Complex analysis is used to define arithmetic

This
X*0=0
Therefore
0/0=X

As in, any number multiplied by zero, therefore zero divided by zero must equal to EVERY NUMBER

>comlex analysis is used to define arithmetic
That doesn't mean you can divide by zero when you are doing normal arithmetic.
For reference, because you are apparently not observant and need glasses, the post below is the one that is referenced to when they typed "you can't divide by zero".

...

No, it isn't defined because it isn't rigorous.

That post isn't using normal arithmetic, also that's exactly what it means to have definitions.

>b=infinity*0
That's why math is funny, there's way to know which value is b but not in this way. b can be all values in this case but positive.
You can divide by zero, if b is a positive value, the result is infinite, if b is a negative value, so, result is -infinite.

...

youtube.com/watch?v=dtJtN97YDEM

>Mongoloid
I thought asians were good at math.

First post, best post.
It's simply true. That's what epistemology and theory of science is all about.

I was plenty rigorous with your mother 17 years ago, I just wish the bitch would have been willing to swallow your smart ass then instead of making me bust that last nut inside her to rope me out of child support.

Tell your mom I'll be home late for dinner

0*0 is defined
The result is neither infinite or -infinite as they aren't defined as values so can't be a result

That post is using normal arithmetic except for dividing with zero. Otherwise it is completely normal.
Secondly, it sets the boundaries. You can't divide by zero, however you can take the limit of a quotient where the divisor tends to zero as x tends towards a certain number.

You can't divide by zero in normal arithemtic.

No, this doesn't mean math is funny. You are simply being stupid. Infinity*0 is undefined because it can be equal to any number in this case and it therefor isn't rigorous. If you see that as funny, fine. Weird humour then.

>Can't comprehend an argument
>Makes "mom" jokes instead
Aren't you a pathetic little child? :^)

you remind me a lot of myself at that age. Send a picture of your mother, I may owe you some child support.

My bad, was supposed to say 0 divided by 0, not 0 multiplied by zero, which is zero.

You're fucking grounded

You don't even live here get out of my house

.999=1

You just agreed that they're not using normal arithmetic
Also you can divide by zero, i'm not talking about limits either, it's using manipulation of power sets with other set properties

It's undefined in this case because there is too few informations about X but X can have a defined value. Sometimes, in maths, we can be in front of this "funny" case and we can solve the equation in an other way. If X=2, we can affirm 0/0=2.

\lim_{x \to 0^{+}} x^{x} = \lim_{x \to 0^{+}} \exp(\log(x^{x}))

= \lim_{x \to 0^{+}} \exp(x \log(x))

= \exp( \lim_{x \to 0^{+} } x \log(x) )

= \exp( \lim_{x \to 0^{+} } \frac{\log(x)}{ x^{-1} } )

= \exp( \lim_{x \to 0^{+} } \frac{ \frac{d}{dx} \log(x) }{ \frac{d}{dx} x^{-1} } )

= \exp( \lim_{x \to 0^{+} } \frac{x^{-1}}{- x^{-2}} )

= \exp( \lim_{x \to 0^{+} } -x )

= \exp( 0)

= 1

still can't divide by zero even if you're dividing zero by it. it's still undefined.

0/0=2?
0/0=(4-4)/(4-4)
o/o=(2^2-2^2)/(2.2-2.2)
0/0=(2+2)(2-2)/2(2-2)
0/0=(2+2)/2
0/0=4/2
0/0=2……………

In the end it's all about what you choose to believe.

Nice, using L'Hospital's rule to show that x^x tends toward 1 as x approaches 0.
As I have constantly stated. If you also read my correction in the context to what you were correcting, you would see that it would say that zero divided by zero isn't defined.

...

>1 apple and 1 pair of pears
>1+1=3

>Infinity*0 is undefined
Yes, in the case of b=infinity*0, it is undefined but we can solve it in others ways. But b/0 still equal to + or - infinity (depends if b or 0 is positive or negative)

2+2 = 5

Lrn to Orwell

>WHY THE FUCK IS THAT MAKING SENSE IN A WAY

Nonsense... if they are the same, why would we have two distinct symbols for the same thing?

I'm trying to work out if this is anti-science or poorly worded pro-science.

the fuck....

OP here, glad someone got it. I have to stop making these /'s. I just needed a good laugh.

...

uhm i ... i ... i think i missed math at scool

im happy with what i have now, so i dont need anything else but me thanks

HHHHMMMM

...

Sheet is falling down, light angles down, it's the floor

+ could be a 1 and it could be the same like 2a is 2xa just that its always named if you have x or : but not if you have - or +

- or + is then shown by the direction of the number.
so
3 (next number 3 with mirror writing) = 0

then + and - are free to be variables.

You dont sadly need x and : caus the only other way would be: you write the numbers at their head, but hey, turn around a 9 wihtout havin a 6 or wrong turned 6.

Jesus fucking Christ how many fucking times.
It's a network floor, it's supposed to be built that way.

PEANO DIDNT NEED CUMPLEX ANAL TO DEFINE ARITHMETIC

Finally OP never told us if he uses the regular axioms and if his expression "+" means "plus"

"you sadly need"

keked and checked.

Also, you could write x and : then just Italic and italic with morror writing.

i gonna explain it for you, guys

Though scientific people often consider the Big Bang as fact, it is just a theory. While it currently is the best options for the start of the universe it isn't treated as an absolute certainty, unlike God, which is almost always considered an absolute certainty in religions.

>uses baseless, petty insults because user knows his thought process is garbage.

Peano is used for natural numbers and their arithmetic characteristics.
Not for rational/irrational numbers.

See

WITH MY HEAD IT ALWAYS IS...

HELP Sup Forums

....

So -8=8?