|
|
|
![]() |
|
|||||||
|
||||||||
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
|
|
|
#1
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: 0=-1 (Calculus Puzzle)
Well, and you left off the "+ C" that you always need...
(though that may very well be what Ether meant) |
|
#2
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: 0=-1 (Calculus Puzzle)
now make 1=2
![]() |
|
#3
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: 0=-1 (Calculus Puzzle)
|
|
#4
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: 0=-1 (Calculus Puzzle)
Let a and b be equal non-zero quantities
a = b 2. Multiply through by a a^2 = ab 3. Subtract b^2 a^2 - b^2 = ab - b^2 4. Factor both sides (a - b)(a + b) = b(a - b) 5. Divide out (a - b) a + b = b 6. Observing that a = b b + b = b 7. Combine like terms on the left 2b = b 8. Divide by the non-zero b 2 = 1 |
|
#5
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: 0=-1 (Calculus Puzzle)
1/3=.33333...
2/3=.66666... 1/3+2/3=.99999... 1=.99999... |
|
#6
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: 0=-1 (Calculus Puzzle)
The ellipsis means infinitely repeating decimal so
.99999... means limit(sum(9/10^i,i,1,n),n,inf) = 1 there is no contradiction. |
|
#7
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: 0=-1 (Calculus Puzzle)
Has this turned into a thread of trying to find a math trick that Ether doesn't know how to work it? If so, i want a chance to disprove it before he dose
. |
|
#8
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: 0=-1 (Calculus Puzzle)
Peck, sorry to tell you but i doubt ull win haha
Although ether, can you prove or disprove Riemann Sums? Now that would be cool. |
|
#9
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: 0=-1 (Calculus Puzzle)
fas est dividere cuius rei demonstrationem mirabilem sane detexi. Hanc marginis exiguitas non caperet
|
|
#10
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: 0=-1 (Calculus Puzzle)
ingles por favor sinor
|
|
#11
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: 0=-1 (Calculus Puzzle)
1) *Inglés or favor señor.
2) according to google translate: It is a wonderful demonstration of what share of corruption. Shortness of this margin does not take but that seems like it was lost a bit in the translation ![]() It is actually taken from Fermat who wrote about a theorem (a^x + b^x = c^x has no integral solution set a,b,c for any integer value for x greater than 2) in the margins of a book in 1637. It is actually the description of the proof for this theorem which he came up with and it translates more accurately to Quote:
Over the years people proved that it held true for specific exponents. It wasn't until 1995 that it all came together in an extremely complex proof that was probably not what Fermat had in mind, but a general proof of the theorem non the less. Last edited by PAR_WIG1350 : 21-03-2012 at 23:28. |
|
#12
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: 0=-1 (Calculus Puzzle)
Quote:
Well played, Ether. |
|
#13
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: 0=-1 (Calculus Puzzle)
my computer is annoying whenever i try to insert alt symbols. also, i was using spanish, not latin and por was correct.
|
|
#14
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: 0=-1 (Calculus Puzzle)
167 = -53
No illegal operations were performed, Last edited by PAR_WIG1350 : 21-03-2012 at 21:49. |
|
#15
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: 0=-1 (Calculus Puzzle)
How about this one:
13 * 7 = 28 Here is the explanation (BTW, the guy in the glasses is Ether as a young man ) |
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|