There is no RationalWiki without you. We are a small non-profit with no staff—we are hundreds of volunteers who document pseudoscience and crankery around the world every day. We will never allow ads because we must remain independent. We cannot rely on big donors with corresponding big agendas. We are not the largest website around, but we believe we play an important role in defending truth and objectivity. |
Fighting pseudoscience isn't free. We are 100% user-supported! Help and donate $5, $10, $20 or whatever you can today with ![]() ![]() |
Talk:Mathematics/Archive1
Divide by 0[edit]
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)
- Spoiler: when you take the square root of both sides, you need a +/-, of course... human
Whats 1+1? StupidIdiot 13:07, 6 November 2007 (EST)[edit]
hg
- 10 tmtoulouse nettle 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)
- 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)
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? human
17:43, 17 November 2007 (EST)
GRR![edit]
What is wrong with the proof that 0=-1? Word time Hoover! 18:03, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Rewrite?[edit]
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)