From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

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... humanUser talk:Human 16:41, 17 November 2007 (EST)

Whats 1+1? StupidIdiot 13:07, 6 November 2007 (EST)[edit]


10 tmtoulouse heckle 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[edit]

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? humanUser talk:Human 17:43, 17 November 2007 (EST)


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

\int f'(x)dx \neq f(x).  \int f'(x) dx = f(x)+C \ . User:FineCheesesUser talk:FineCheeses 18:12, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
I remain unconvinced. Word cubic Hoover! 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.User:FineCheesesUser talk:FineCheeses 03:31, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


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)

Not a science?[edit]

>Mathematics is a mainstay of science (but is not considered a science itself),

I think mathematics falls under the common usage of the word science. Per

"Science –noun 1. a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences. "Doubledork (talk) 22:19, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree that math, itself, could be considered a science of some kind. Especially when one gets to the point where mathematics and science intertwine, such as physics and calculus. AnarchoGoon Swatting Assflys is how I earn my living 04:30, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
I don't see why "" is the final authority on this topic. ħumanUser talk:Human 06:17, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Science deals with the real world. Maths, whilst often applicable to the real world, deals with abstractions. Jack Hughes (talk) 08:18, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Some more evidence: "Mathematics, which is classified as a formal science" - from Also, from the page on Mathematics, "Carl Friedrich Gauss referred to mathematics as "the Queen of the Sciences".[28] In the original Latin Regina Scientiarum, as well as in German Königin der Wissenschaften, the word corresponding to science means (field of) knowledge. Indeed, this is also the original meaning in English, and there is no doubt that mathematics is in this sense a science."
If this were mere quibbling over verbal definitions, it would not be very important. My main concern is that there is an irrational bias at this site against fields like mathematics - just because experimental verification plays a lesser role there than other epistemological methods, like logical deduction. - Doubledork (talk) 20:45, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Nah, you're just wrong. And stupid. And use silly resources to try to prove your "point". ħumanUser talk:Human 06:36, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Math and reality[edit]

This article and the short discussion above reflect something that has bugged me for a long time: do the axioms on which mathematics is founded (identity of integers, etc.) exist because these axioms correspond to reality, or because they are a priori truths of some kind? (And, if so, please kindly explain how such an a priori truth can even be known...) I'm not expecting a definitive answer, just a smattering of views on the subject that can hopefully be integrated into the article. Tetronian you're clueless 04:39, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Simply, the sort of correspond to reality. The are there to secure a firm basis from which one can do math, but they have been chosen in such a manner that we can construct the integers, rational and real numbers, in such a way that they have the properties that allow them to mimic reality to a certain extent. The reason for this, is that mathematician in the late 19th century started to see that, well, their vague definitions started to lead to contradictions which is not good for a logical system. Therefore, the axioms where introduced to rectify this and they have been doing the job pretty well so far. — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs
This is why I don't do maths. Thinking about it too hard breaks my brain. Scarlet A.pngnarchist 21:04, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
Basically, anything above this is off the cards for me :S Scarlet A.pngnarchist 21:05, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Pagan Cult of Hell and also evil[edit]

Mathematics is demonstrably a tool of the Devil Herself and I feel this article should contain a section reflecting this. It is our duty as responsible people to warn young minds away from this skein of soul-devouring wickedness before their intractable descent into madness can begin. Δʘ_ʘΔ 23:44, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

No Nobel Prize[edit]

The paragraph about the non existent Nobel prize for mathematics is no longer entirely correct. Since 2002 there is the equally prestigious and equally financially interesting Abel Prize of the Norwegian Academy of Sciences. As for the Nobel prize so far it has turned out mostly to be a prize for old men in their 70s or even 80s. As opposed to that the Fields medal is for people below 40. -- MaLeZig (Bonn) PS: — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs (signed by bot) 09:57, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Why is maths hard.[edit]

Many a graduate student has come to grief when they discover, after a decade of being told they were “good at math,” that in fact they have no real mathematical talent and are just very good at following directions.
—Paul Lockhart

Well the only difference is that I knew all along that I did not understand maths. I'm a gifted and talented student. I have to admit that I don't understand maths at all. I am actually doing a Chinese room sort of thing in school. I'm so sad that I do not understand maths at all that I wanted to die.


My maths teacher admitted that he does not know how to teach an autistic student. He says that I have a special talent for maths through.

ClickerClock (talk) 09:27, 4 June 2017 (UTC)