Talk:Mathematics/Archive1

Divide by 0
I feel that somewhere it should be pointed out WHY that proof is incorrect, for the less mathematically inclined. It's because A-B=0, and you cannot divide by 0Researcher 19:02, 12 October 2007 (EDT)
 * NO, you gave away the secret. Now we can't fool people into actually believing it.  Oh well, there's always the proof that 1 = -1...  ThunderkatzHo! 19:24, 12 October 2007 (EDT)  p.s. I guess the proof is actually irrelevant to the article, I just needed to fill space.
 * Spoiler: when you take the square root of both sides, you need a +/-, of course... human  16:41, 17 November 2007 (EST)

Whats 1+1? StupidIdiot 13:07, 6 November 2007 (EST)
hg


 * 10 13:09, 6 November 2007 (EST)


 * There are 10 kinds of people in this world: Those who understand trinary, those who don't, and those who get it confused with binary. Masterbratac 13:11, 6 November 2007 (EST)
 * LOL math joke Elassint Throw things at me 15:58, 6 November 2007 (EST)

Another proof
I added my favourite proof (childhood memories). Feel free to correct spelling and font of mathematical expressions. Or to delete it, whatever. Editor at CP 17:19, 17 November 2007 (EST)
 * Same trick as -1 = 1, isn't it? Not considering both square roots? human  17:43, 17 November 2007 (EST)

GRR!
What is wrong with the proof that 0=-1? 18:03, 1 March 2010 (UTC)


 * $$\int f'(x)dx \neq f(x). \int f'(x) dx = f(x)+C \ $$.  18:12, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I remain unconvinced. 21:50, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Because of a falsehood perpetrated by high school teachers for hundreds of years.
 * See, $$\int \phi$$ is a SET: $$\int \phi(x)dx=\left\{{ f:\mathbb{R}\to\mathbb{R} | f'(x) = \phi(x)}\right\}$$. This set has the property that $$( \alpha,\beta:\mathbb{R}\to\mathbb{R} ) \in \int \phi(x)dx \implies \exists c\in\mathbb{R}:\alpha(x)=\beta(x)+c$$. 03:31, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Rewrite?
I see pages like physics, chemistry, and biology actually say something about what the field is about, but this page is just a not-too-enlightening introduction together with a bunch of dumb "proofs" about 1=2. Any objections if I try to write a bit better outline, link to the few existing math-related pages and dump the 1=2 crap somewhere else? I propose mathematical fallacies, and it could have other things too and be worked into the pseudomathematics category. In the meantime I'll add yet another fake proof. --MarkGall (talk) 22:06, 2 March 2010 (UTC)