Talk:Mathematics/Archive1

This is an archive page, last updated 8 October 2021. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:  , (new)(back)

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... Thunderkatz^Ho! 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 tmtoulouse ^vex 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? Time evil Hoover! 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. Time evil 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 $(\alpha ,\beta :\mathbb {R} \to \mathbb {R} )\in \int \phi (x)dx\implies \exists c\in \mathbb {R} :\alpha (x)=\beta (x)+c$. 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)