/sci/ - Science & Math

>>11621529
You can’t cancel (a-b) on both sides on line 4 because a-b=0.

>>11621529
>randomly turning b to a
Epic

>>11621540
why not

>>11621543
a = b ya dum tranny

>>11621545
if a=b that means a-b = 0

>>11621548
>poltard doesn't understand basic math
Every time

>>11621559
>>11621540
so because a-b=0 you cant take step 4 to 5 because you cant divide by zero? lame

>>11621563
fool it says a = b at the top.

>>11621540
Why can't you divide by zero?
Prove it.

>>11621529
Those all make sense to me up until the last 4.
>a=b
>a+b=b ?

>>11621545
division by zero. the trick is old af. and silly too.

>>11621529
>[math]
a + b = b

a +a = a
[/math]

>>11621529
>What is proof?
>Is there strict definition of proof?
No.
Read Lakatos, formalists get BTFOed

>>11621580
you can define division in such a way that includes zero if you want to be retarded, but it's objectively false that 0*x = 0*y implies x=y

>>11621529
There are 3 types of statements:
The definition of a proof is a sequence of statements, all of which are known to be true, either because they are assumed, or because they are implied by previous statements in the sequence. The caveat is that, if statement X is an implied statement, then Craig Interpolation between the statement that is the conjunction of all statements before X, and X, cannot produce a statement with more than 1 variable distinct from the variables in either statement.
>>11621611
Wrong. I just gave a strict definition.

>>11621529
you've just proved that 0=0

>>11621700
and to add to this if 2a=a then a=0

>>11621687
based

>>11621529
we just don't know

>>11621699
>Wrong. I am euphoric in this moment. Proof is just formal deduction!
wikipedia-tier logicism

>>11621838
>I don't understand proofs. Thus they are meaningless!
All philosophy from the past 100 years is shit tier.

>>11621851
>hurr durr Godel was wrong, math is just uh symbuhl game!! i looove symbolz
Stay in your autist sandbox digging up cat poop theorems, formalfaggot.

>>11621529
(a2 = b) wouldn't equal (a = ab)
It'd equal (a = a/b)
Am I missing something or is this shit retarded, I haven't studied math since high school six years ago but this seems obvious.

>>11621851
>I don't agree with somebody on the internet. Therefore something they might like is meaningless.

You two deserve each other.

>>11621887
>I don't understand Godel's theorems, but it doesn't matter, I have philosophers to suck off!

>>11621529
>a+b=b
And how the absolute fuck did you determine that, you colossal kike fuck? I bet you are retarded enough to believe in ERT too

>>11621898
What the hell are you talking about?
That's nowhere in "the proof".

2(3) = 6
does not imply 2 = 2/6
in case you meant multiplication.
2^2 = 4
does not imply 2 = 2/4
in case you meant power

>>11621918
so much misdirected anger

Also all the people arguing the "proof" in the top post are missing the point.
This thread is literally just aspies throwing poop.

>>11621907
>daaee you dont understand you dont understand suck on peepees
nice impotent comebacks, retard. But thanks for bowing out.
Speaking of sucking off dicks, you can go grab your kneepads now.

>>11621952
>be philospher
>don't know how to do math
>don't know how to code
>can't get a job
>suck dicks for living
That's proof of your existence, fag. Haven't you ever heard of metamath? The definition of a formal proof is one that the computer says is OK. Duh.

>>11621968

>>11621970
Wow, I just realized that by kneepads you were referring to prostitutes who suck cock for a living and their knees get tired. Huh, I wonder how that idea got in your head.

>>11621887
That's not what Godel theorems say
in fact Godel's completeness theorem shows that first-order truth is completely witnessed by symbol game

>>11621563
proven tranny is mad

>>11621979
>I wonder how that idea got in your head.
I bet you're pretty good at head logicboy

>>11622056
Your head, not my head. Can you read?

>>11622059
>Can you read?
I can read your lips.
Stop anon...you're giving me a very strict definition...if you keep deducing I'll lose control and QED right here in front of everyone tehe

>>11622187
yeah yeah whatever smallbrain fagboi

[math] \displaystyle
e^{ix}= \cos(x)+ i \sin(x) \\
e^{ix}e^{iy} = e^{ix+iy} = e^{i(x+y)} = \cos(x+y)+ i \sin(x+y) \\
e^{ix}e^{iy} = ( \cos(x)+ i \sin(x))( \cos(y)+ i \sin(y)) \\
~~~ = \cos(x) \cos(y)+ \cos(x) i \sin(y)+ i \sin(x) \cos(y)+ i \sin(x) i \sin(y) \\
~~~ = \cos(x) \cos(y) - \sin(x) \sin(y)+ i (\sin(x) \cos(y)+ \cos(x) \sin(y))
\\
Re: \cos(x+y) = \cos(x) \cos(y) - \sin(x) \sin(y) \\
Im: \sin(x+y) = \sin(x) \cos(y)+ \cos(x) \sin(y)
[/math]

>>11622250
>"plz lemme succ your peen-ano"
No anon, not here. Have some propriety!

>>11621540
clever

>>11621611
(((Lakatos)))

>>11621580
OP is unironically proof that you can't

>>11621529
You are like a little baby.

a =/= b
a*0 =/= b*0
0=/= 0

>>11621529
>what is a proof
Making a convincing enough argument that at least half the people you present it to believe you. This is assisted by following all the accepted rules (axioms and definitions) and citing other successful arguments to support yours. Despite how tenuous this seems, it appears to work pretty well - we are discussing this idea using technology wholly developed from mathematics that uses mathematics to operate, so it has to work to some degree unless we're all just hallucinating, or it's one particularly robust hallucination (and at that point, does it really matter what's true or not?)

>>11621540
You can't even get to line 3 because of this, actually.

>>11622996
If you can adjust rule of a proof when you don't like result of it, can we trust it?
Isn't it circular reasoning?

>>11621529
inference rules

>>11623138
>can we trust it?
truth is supported by reality,
mistakes are disproven by reality.
You can trust some well-manufactured lies only to fool somebody (most of the time that body includes yourself)

>>11621529
>He doesn't write his proofs in a bare-bones first order Hilbert system
Yikes, brother.

>>11624417
>truth is supported by reality,
>mistakes are disproven by reality.
convincing.
but that means proof is not math but physics or geography which depends on your location.

>>11621529
proof is just modus ponens the shit out of everything

>>11624899
Only if you need that proof to be about something being real.
As you are well aware, a large chunk of math is completely imaginary, and natural numbers don't add up to -1/12 to, and I think they've lost it when they assumed that a summation which is whether 1 or 0 equals 1/2, though it literally never is.

>>11623044
Why? Line 3 is fine.

>>11625503
By that logic you can never sum any infinite series either.

>>11621563
dilate and read the image again retard

The best way to strictly define proof is to write a program which automatically proves new theorems.
Can anybody do this?

>>11621611
>>11621838
thanks for the rec anon, I've been wanting to get into philosophy of mathematics for a long time

>>11626584
You can calculate limits of them. But I'm not specialized in that field, so please inform me if that is not where the hindus (or their racist middlemen) broke the math.

>>11626584
>By that logic you can never sum any infinite series either.
>"hey, if you don't believe this retarded thing, then you can't do retarded stuff!"
No shit, faggot retard.

>>11621580
You can't divide by zero because 1 doesn't equal 2. If anything this is a proof by contradiction as to why division by zero makes no sense.

Is it possible to create a mathematician program?

>>11621529
>What is proof?
Information that allows us to know other information with absolute certainty.
>Is there strict definition of proof?
Yes. That definition is 'information that allows us to know other information with absolute certainty.'
It's kind of pointless though because we cannot prove anything, we can only obtain evidence to varying degrees of non-absolute certainty.

>>11621529
>0(a+b)=0b
>therefore, a+b=b
Are you an actual fucking retard? Like a legitimate, sub-60-iq, downsyndrome-having moronic retard?

>2a=a
>therefore, 2=1
non-sequitir fucktard

>>11621540
Nice catch on nullified state anon

>>11629485
>Information that allows us to know other information with absolute certainty.
Once you have proved it, "other information" is no longer "other information".
So we can't prove the same thing twice.

>>11629918
We can if we've forgotten that we proved it once ;)

>>11629930
>we've forgotten that we proved it once
based.
That's how we practice.