/sci/ - Science & Math

2

inb4
>1+1 is an expression, there's no equals sign

or some similarly retarded, convoluted bullshit answer.
someone post the XKCD comic with the douchebag doing the same thing who gets his hand cut off.

1 + 1? = 0

1 = 1?

1= ?

nigger

>>2729315
There is no trick. The answer is 2

>>2729327

GIVE THIS MAN A FIELDS METAL

this could also be written as +(1,1); or in lisp (+ 1 1)

>>2729337
or postfix (reverse polish notation) 1 1 +

or one could interpret '+' to be a logical OR

http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=1+%2B+1

>>2729327
Are you fucking retarted? You can't just set shit = to zero you dumb fuck. And EVEN if the question mark was a variable you only found the where "?" equals zero. That is if the function can be written as f(?)= 1 + 1? in which case all you did was set f(?) equal to zero and found what ? equaled at that point. You didn't find the value of said function even then as it would be zero.

>>2729353
http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=add+one+one

>>2729354

You don't need to be so butthurt that i thought of it.

>>2729354
http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=x%2B1

Like that amirite?

>>2729363
http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=f%28x%29%3D%281%2B1+%2F+1+^+1+%2B+sqrt%281%29*cos%280%29-1+*+at
an%280%29+%2B3%29%2F%282%29+-1

HEY GUIES IM DOIN THE MATH!

>>2729383

No. You're just being a douche, son.

>>2729395
oh, im sorry.... did i not add in enough shit?

>>2729363
I'm just stating the fact that you are wrong that is all. There was no initial equal term, unless you assumed it was a function. In which case you actually didn't even find the answer to the function, but only where the function equaled zero. But all you can say in this case about 1 + 1? is that it equals 1 + 1? because a question was never even asked unless you assume that the "?" mark posed a question then the answer is 2.

>>2729399

NO, YOU DIDN'T ADD ENOUGH BITCH TAKE THIS

http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=f%28x%29%3D%281%2B1+%2F+1+%2B1-1%2B1-1%2B1-1

http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=lim%28x%2Bx%29+x+approaches+1

Beast thread on /sci/ by far.

http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=wolframalpha+thread%3F+wolframalpha+thread

>>2729412
http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=f%28x%29%3Dsqrt%28%28%28%28%28%28%281%2B1+%2F+1+^+1+%2B+sqrt%28
1%29*cos%280%29-1+*+atan%280%29+%2B3%29%2F%282%29+-1%29^2+%2B+8+*+tan%280%29+%2B+7%29%2B1+%29%2F+2%2
9+-2%29%29

>>2729425

http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=f%28x%29%3Dsqrt%28%28%28%28%28%28%281%2B1+%2F+1%29%29%29%29%29%
29%29%29%29%29%29%29%29%29%29%29%29%29%29%29%29%29%29%29%29%29%29%29%29%29%29%29%29%29%29%29%29%29%2
9%29%29%29%29%29%29%29%29%29%29%29%29%29%29%29%29%29%29%29%29%29%29%29%29%29%29%29%29%29%29%29%29%29
%29%29%29%29%29%29%29%29%29%29%29%29%29%29%29%29%29%29%29%29%29%29%29%29%29%29%29%29%29%29%29%29%29%
29%29%29%29%29%29%29%29%29%29%29%29%29%29%29%29%29%29%29%29%29%29%29%29%29%29%29%29%29%29%29%29%29%2
9%29%29%29%29%29%29%29%29%29

>>2729425
i win.... suck it!

>>2729403

you are such a gigantic faggot.

read:
>>2729325

this person is infinitely more intelligent than you. (because im going to be a troll and say divide by zero = infinity)

>>2729430

Hey VP, is your anus still sore form our AI discussion?

1 + 1 = window.

http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=2%28cos%28x%29^2%2Bsin%28x%29^2%29*%28n!%2Fn!1!%29%2B%281^-1%29
*i^4

OBVIOUSLY

>>2729430
1/0 does theoretically equal infinity you fucking dumbshit.
>Inb4 you're a huge faggot who thinks that 0! = 0

>>2729430
oh, but we can play that game too...
http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=f%28x%29%3D%28%281%2B1+%2F+1+^+1+%2B+sqrt%281%29*cos%280%29-1+*
+atan%280%29+%2B3%29%2F%282%29+-1%29^2+%2B+8+*+csc%280%29%2Fsin%280%29

Lrn2 OR
1+1=1

>>2729437
http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=0%21%2B0%21

>>2729437
>>2729437
>>2729437
http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=1%2F0

lolwut.... u fail

http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=sqr%28tan%2845%29+%2B+tan%2845%29%29^2

11-17 years Old Girls and Boys CP!!! CP!!!! CP!!!! Save all links before 404! And download after time...!!!!

http://4p5.com/aaf03e
http://4p5.com/6c25c8
http://4p5.com/cf48a0
http://4p5.com/9a0fc4
http://4p5.com/883ceb
http://4p5.com/01878f
http://4p5.com/776b12
http://4p5.com/d5062c
http://4p5.com/75dedb
http://4p5.com/df372b
http://4p5.com/c7d14a
http://4p5.com/ef7919
http://4p5.com/8d8345
http://4p5.com/638a61
http://4p5.com/7f9
http://4p5.com/5eddc1
http://4p5.com/b22de8
http://4p5.com/26dc17
http://4p5.com/20a64
http://4p5.com/e28c82
http://4p5.com/d6064b
http://4p5.com/c9967
http://4p5.com/4c969c
http://4p5.com/b9b909
http://4p5.com/9cd
http://4p5.com/c0008f
http://4p5.com/c822bd
http://4p5.com/bab6bf
http://4p5.com/46ecbc
http://4p5.com/94abc6
http://4p5.com/092
http://4p5.com/075046
http://4p5.com/89a598
http://4p5.com/c97279
http://4p5.com/16129b
http://4p5.com/e619ab
http://4p5.com/00a111
http://4p5.com/c7f032
http://4p5.com/d8a4b1
http://4p5.com/2a0e04
http://4p5.com/4664d7
http://4p5.com/3143ef
http://4p5.com/b92a11
http://4p5.com/944905
http://4p5.com/112d8d
http://4p5.com/836795

Dwonload jailbait and CP Videos! No Password! No sms! Free fr All..........!!aknmspdionpo

>>2729444
http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=1%2B1%3D1

>>2729437
but dont you understand limits?

in y=1/x, as x approaches zero, y approaches infinity.

therefore, 1/0 = infinity.

lrn2math.

http://www.google.com/search?q=What+is+1+%2B+1%3F

>>2729453

define infinity

>>2729454
At least this kind of spam is better than http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=Friday

>>2729447
You are correct sir, 0! = 1. I don't know why you said I failed because I said that 0! =/= 0, because it equals 1. Thats why whenever you plug in 0!+0! into that gay little website program you get 2.

>>2729427

>an attempt was made to fix mismatched delimiters

>>2729452
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OR_gate

wolframalpha don't know shit about OR gate

H

>>2729453
That's exactly what I said. Math is theoretical, thats why I said 1/0 theoretically equals infinity.

>>2729480
http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=1+OR+1

never heard of limits where something can be approaching infinite, yet it actually is a defined number, just the equation fails at certain points

>>2729493
Beat me to it...

I just can't believe that this subject got so out of hand.

I love you guys.

>>2729491
you could consider the limit to be piecewise, or discrete as computers do. if x == 0 then exception, else valid

>>2729465
shh, im pissing off idiots who didnt notice i brought up "divide by zero" to derail the thread.

>>2729491
1/0=infinity=2/0

1/0=2/0

1=2

derpdederp, look at me be a huge faggot.

>>2729517
so what's it like choking on a huge bag of dicks?
1=/=2 I believe the answer you are looking for is Indeterminate

>>2729536
how can it be indeterminate when it has been clearly established multiple times that 1/0=infinity.

>>2729551
haha I know you're trolling but I'll bite. 1/0=2/0. Cross Multiply and you get 0/0 which can be stated as Indeterminate.

>>2729565
pfft, its only indeterminate because they refuse to believe that dividing by zero = infinity.

therefore, when you multiply by zero, you are essentially dividing by infinity.

by cross multiplying, you are effectively multiplying everything to an infinite value.

hence, 0/0 = infinity.

think about it, no matter how many zeros you take out of zero, you can always take out more.

because of this, 0/0 is not indeterminate, and zero has a defined qualitative value.

>>2729551

See: -INIFINITY

>>2729590
no infinity is a special case of Undefined. As I said earlier, math is theoretical and 1/0 theoretically equals infinity. You're relating everything back to infinity which is a special case of undefined. Go and teach some pre-algebra fag how to distribute

>>2729614
-infinity = -1/0

like fucking der.

was your mother also your cousin?

THE ORIGINAL QUESTION WAS 1+1.

STOP BEING FAGGOTS.

>>2729617
>undefined

fuck, man, seriously. infinity isnt undefined. it is a value with no limit.

THEREFORE IT IS DEFINED.

everything i said was true.

>>2729590
That whole argument is based around the fact of if you can take nothing out of nothing. This has no use in the applicable world, please go choke on a bag of dicks... again. It's nice to believe in applicable uses for 0/0 or a frictionless environment but they are just thoughts and what ifs. No use to us

>>2729636
they are n the field of mathematics.

MANY high level equations and problems of the universe have been solved through the direct application of infinity, which came into the formulas by introducing the limit of infinity when they needed to divide by zero.

i should know, as i am a published mathemagician with a phd.

>>2729636

>pure math has not applications so it is not a subject for study.

>>2729649
How's that working out for yah? Congratulations you solved a theoretical math problem using theoretical methods. Do you understand Limits? Taking the limit as x goes to infinity yields what it comes close to. Never truly equaling it. Close only counts in horseshoes and handgrenades. Luckily for you arc-lengths and trajectories and what not will still work in the real world as long as you are close.

>>2729628
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Division_by_zero
read the whole artice
stop using user name and trip and stop embarising yourself
it's just a friendly advice

>>2729683
>yields what it comes close to

yeah... in 1=2, the one is just "close to equaling" 2 right?

nice try faggot.

its very clear, setting limits allows you to use the value of the asymptote as a defined value, hence, i am right, so shut your mouth.

>>2729697
FROM YOUR OWN FUCKIGN SOURCE:

In higher mathematics

"Although division by zero cannot be sensibly defined with real numbers and integers, it is possible to consistently define it, or similar operations, in other mathematical structures."

i know its hard to understand, but take it from someone with 70 years of industry experience, they only teach that dividing by zero is undefined in schools because its too complex for simpletons like you to understand.

>>2729703
ha you tried to debunk what I said by saying that 1=2.... notsureifserious.jpeg
See I can prove in the real world that 1=/=2 unless you're speaking in abstract algebra bullshit terms where 11+2=1 because the scale is different. You know I'm right

>>2729737
i unequivocally demonstrated that 1 CAN equal 2 in a previous post.

lets re-examine it;

1/0=infinity=2/0

1/0=2/0

1=2

so suck it.

>>2729716
none of them states that the answer is infinity
..really you're not helping yourself

>>2729744
yes they did. just because you didnt understand it doesnt make it so.

>>2729716
Look say you want to find the sum of the series, and n goes to infinity. Great in math you can find what it can theoretically get to but it will NEVER reach that value therefore infinity is still undefined.

>>2729751
someone doesnt understand cyclic redundancy.

thats a perfect example of how infinity MUST be invoked in order to determine the real value of something.

just because you cant count to infinity doesnt mean it doesnt exist.

1 + 1 = windows HAHAHA

>>2729453
You are a retard. Allow me to grace this thread with my presence. Using your reasoning,

>in y=1/x, as x approaches zero, y approaches infinity.
First, false.
lim as x -> 0 of 1/x is undefined.
Now,
lim as x -> 0+ of 1/x is defined. It goes to infinity.
It's also the case that
lim as x -> 0- of 1/x goes to negative infinity.

>therefore, 1/0 = infinity.
Ignoring that pesky little issue of you have no clue what you're doing, I have another problem, namely you just proved:
- infinity = infinity
I have some problems with that.

>>2729770
"a" window.

dickhead.

>>2729776
your entire argument is redered moot as your abse assumption is entirely incorrect

>lim as x -> 0 of 1/x is undefined.

no its not. PROVE it. just because it gives an answer you dont like doesnt mean that it suddenly doesnt exist.

this is as fucktarded as saying "if i ignore the x, it doesnt exist".

lrn2science. this is /sci/ after all.

also

>Allow me to grace this thread with my presence

way to make yourself out to be a pompous ass, while simultaneously looking like a moron for getting it COMPLETELY wrong.

fullretard.jpg

>>2729745
the one who doesn't understand is you
i've always wondered why are uneducated people so prejudice about things they do not understand
well i guess it can't be helped
i'm out of here

>>2729763
haha no, infinity is used to determine the value of the sum as x approaches infinity. YOU ARE USING CIRCULAR LOGIC IN WHICH YOU ARE BACKING UP INFINITY WITH INFINITY. Thats like saying, God must be real because it says so in the bible, and the bible must be true because it's the word of God.

>>2729799
It's easy with someone who has no clue what they're doing. One sec for a more formal demonstration that lim as x->0 of 1/x is undefined, or at least that it cannot go to infinity.

>>2729809
Let's restrict our domain to R for the moment to make all of our lives easier.

lim as x->n of f(x) goes to infinity, colloquially written
lim as x->n of f(x) = inf
iff
n is a limit point of f, and
(for all E) (there exists delta > 0) (for all x in dom(f)) (0 < |x - n| < delta implies f(x) > E)

To Be Continuted...

>>2729802
figures you would run away.

IF you understood the wiki, you would see my point very clearly. obviously, you do not. you are an idiot.

>>2729803
it isnt circular reasoning. if it was, i would be saying "infinity exists because this formula says it does, and this formula is true, because it gives a definite value to infinity".

i didnt say that. you obviously dont now what circular reasoning is.

i gave CLEAR and CONCISE reasoning as to why it is real and defined, and you have refuted me.

>>2729809
fuck... you get more and more wrong with each post.

>cannot go to infinity.

this is why we have maths... so that we can use limits to find values we couldnt normally find.

this is like saying "i cant count all the people in this city, therefore the number of people is undefined".

use a method when a method must be used.

but hey, you can keep walking around like an ignorant twat.

doesnt bother me.

>>2729799
just look at where are you starting..
y=1/x
this function is a generalization
and by definition is undefined for x = 0
learn your functions

also if the limit form both sides does not approach the same number then the number at that point is undefind
learn your limits

>>2729845 same fag
*the value of the function at that point*

>>2729845
>if the limit form both sides does not approach the same number

>if i dont understand it, then it mustnt be real.

>if i get an answer i dont like, i will say its the equations fault.

>im a giant faggot who cannot into maths.

>>2729857
GTFO aether

>>2729832
Continued:

Let's do a simple proof by contradiction.
Assume lim as x->0 of 1/x goes to infinity.

Thus
0 is a limit point of f, and
(for all E) (there exists delta > 0) (for all x in dom(1/x)) (0 < |x - 0| < delta implies 1/x > E)
(for all E) (there exists delta > 0) (for all x in dom(1/x)) (0 < |0| < delta implies 1/x > E)

Thus, via universal instantiation,
(for E = 2) (there exists delta > 0) (for all x in dom(1/x)) (0 < |x| < delta implies 1/x > E)
(there exists delta > 0) (for all x in dom(1/x)) (0 < |x| < delta implies 1/x > 2)

We can restriction the domain of a universial qualifier and retain its truthfulness, thus
(there exists delta > 0) (for all x in (dom(1/x) intersection negative Reals)) (0 < |x| < delta implies 1/x > 2)

Thus we can "remove" that abs val function,
(there exists delta > 0) (for all x in (dom(1/x) intersection negative Reals)) (0 < -x < delta implies 1/x > 2)

Some quick algebra and basic manipulation gives
(there exists delta > 0) (for all x in (dom(1/x) intersection negative Reals)) (0 < -x < delta implies 1/x > 2)
(there exists delta > 0) (for all x in (dom(1/x) intersection negative Reals)) (0 > x > delta implies 1/x > 2)
(there exists delta > 0) (for all x in (dom(1/x) intersection negative Reals)) (0 > x > delta implies 1 < 2x)
(there exists delta > 0) (for all x in (dom(1/x) intersection negative Reals)) (0 > x > delta implies 1/2 < x)
(there exists delta > 0) (for all x in (dom(1/x) intersection negative Reals)) (0 > x implies 1/2 < x)
(there exists delta > 0) (for all x in (dom(1/x) intersection negative Reals)) (false)
(there exists delta > 0) (false)
(false)

Ok, so, we derived false, which means one of our assumptions must be false. Our only assumption was that "Assume lim as x->0 of 1/x goes to infinity.", thus that assumption is false.

Any questions?

>>2729844
>and you have refuted me

should be

>and you have not refuted me

a is a number in the reals such that a=/=0.
a*0=0
a=0/0
0/0 is any number in the reals, we cannot determine its value, therefore it is indeterminate.

Next, b=/=0:
a=b/0, or a*0=b. No value exists such that the variable a multiplied by zero results in a nonzero real number. Therefore it is undefined, it cannot be defined as a number.

If you're going to talk about hurr not indeterminate.

>>2729869
Err, minor typo in there. Should read:

> (there exists delta > 0) (for all x in (dom(1/x) intersection negative Reals)) (0 > x > -delta implies 1/x > 2)
> (there exists delta > 0) (for all x in (dom(1/x) intersection negative Reals)) (0 > x > -delta implies 1 < 2x)
> (there exists delta > 0) (for all x in (dom(1/x) intersection negative Reals)) (0 > x > -delta implies 1/2 < x)

Missed the negative on the delta. Doesn't affect the correctness of the proof really.

>>2729844
You do realize that in the function f(x)=1/x; x can't ever equal 0 right? Because f(x) can not ever equal zero, then it is undefined because it may get infinitely close to zero but it will never truly equal it. That right there my friend is one of the reasons why infinity is a special case of undefined. Also 0/0 is indeterminate. There are people significantly more intelligent than you and even they will agree with it. 0/0 has no applicable use and belongs in the fairy tale frictionless world of gumdrops and hookers.

>>2729869
>didnt get answer i wanted, so im going to ignore that infinity exists.

every step was a valid mathematical step.

all that dividing by zero does is give infinity, and when you invoke it in equations, you can prove things which would otherwise be too hard to prove.

i mean fuck, what you are trying to say is that infinity cannot be used because it doesnt give the answers you want.

try telling that to all the mathematicians who use infinity on a daily basis to examine previously unexplored worlds of complexity.

>>2729889
>You do realize that in the function f(x)=1/x; x can't ever equal 0 right? Because f(x) can not ever equal zero, then it is undefined because it may get infinitely close to zero but it will never truly equal it.
Wrong. Please learn to calculus.

It is true that
lim as x-> 0+ of 1/x goes to inf
and
lim as x-> 0- of 1/x goes to - inf

The ignorant asshat is mistaken that
lim as x-> 0 of 1/x goes to inf
It does not. The limit is undefined.

>>2729889
> There are people significantly more intelligent than you and even they will agree with it.

nice argument from authority.

notice: no source. no citation. no names.

all you did was RESTATE something i disproved, presented it as fact, and said "SMART PEOPLE AGREE WITH ME".

go die in a fire. you are everything wrong with the world.

>>2729898
>The limit is undefined.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/limit

>>2729893
>every step was a valid mathematical step.
And yet you dispute it veracity. Let me guess - you didn't do very well in high school calc, and now you're just angry with the world? Let me repeat:

> lim as x-> 0+ of 1/x goes to inf
true

> lim as x-> 0- of 1/x goes to - inf
true

> lim as x-> 0 of 1/x goes to inf
false

Anything else is will get you marked wrong on a calc 1 test.

>>2729906
> lim as x-> 0 of 1/x goes to inf
>false

keep repeating your mantra.

it doesnt make it true.

>>2729905
If you take the limit from different directions and different results occur, guess what you have?

At least you remember hearing something like this when taking limits of functions with two variables, right? Right?

>>2729913
>keep repeating your mantra.
>it doesnt make it true.
That is correct. My deductive proof (else-thread) demonstrates that it's true.

>>2729898
>>2729901
whenever you two "geniuses" come up with a way have perpetual motion or energy, I'll believe in you both. Mathematicians are so silly.

>>2729875
Actually, that's still wrong. I glossed over some details there at the end, but you should get the basic idea. I have to demonstrate that dom(f) intersection negative reals is non-empty, and that there exists an element in that set which makes
0 > x and x > -delta
true, and
1/2 < x
false.

As Reals are a dense set, that's not too hard to do.

>>2729919
What? Proving a limit goes to infinity, or that it's undefined, in no way proves that perpetual motion is impossible. Were you dropped on your head as a baby?

>>2729913
read this
http://math.wikia.com/wiki/Undefined#Calculus_and_the_Evaluation_of_Limits
and go back to >>>/b/

>>2729914
> if you take the limit from different directions and different results occur, guess what you have?

could you come across as any more retarded?

even from the wikipedia article:

"In higher mathematics

Although division by zero cannot be sensibly defined with real numbers and integers, it is possible to consistently define it, or similar operations, in other mathematical structures."

"a sophisticated answer refers to the singular support of the distribution"

" one can define a pseudo-division, by setting a/b = ab+, in which b+ represents the pseudoinverse of b"

i mean, i know its complex, but if you dont want to spend the time learning it, dont comment.

you have to take the psuedo-universe created by the division and expand it out into various complex matrixes in which various answers can be obtained.

HENCE 1 DOES EQUAL 2 SOMETIMES.

faggot.
>>2729915

>My deductive proof

you ultimately said nothing. all you did was draw out the example of 1=2, and claim that it is thus impossible.

and that is all you have repeated.

>>2729947
That really doesn't answer his question. A good "non-mathy" answer is that it approaches positive infinity from the right, and negative infinity from the left, so it's undefined.

A better "more-mathy" answer is my (incomplete) proof else-thread.

>>2729952
>you ultimately said nothing. all you did was draw out the example of 1=2, and claim that it is thus impossible.
>and that is all you have repeated.
No, I gave a proof that lim as x->0 of 1/x does not go infinity.

>>>2729430
>because im going to be a troll and say divide by zero = infinity
>because im going to be a troll and say divide by zero = infinity
>because im going to be a troll and say divide by zero = infinity

>101 posts and 12 image replies omitted. Click Reply to view.

VP confirmed as greatest troll on /sci/.

>>2729943
No, but it proves that infinity only has uses in theory. Everything goes back to energy in the long run, in the real world. So... where's my perpetual motion device?

>>2729959
no you didnt.

you only said it doesnt go to infinity because it doesnt give the result you wanted.

>>2729967
>No, but it proves that infinity only has uses in theory. Everything goes back to energy in the long run, in the real world. So... where's my perpetual motion device?

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Not_even_wrong

>Not even wrong (or the full version "That's not right - that's not even wrong") refers to any statement, argument or explanation that is not only incorrect but also fails to meet criteria by which correctness and incorrectness are determined.

>The phrase implies that not only is someone not making a valid point in a discussion, but they don't even seem to understand the nature of the discussion itself, or the things that need to be understood in order to participate.

>>2729956
but it does
if 0/0, inf/inf, 0/inf etc. were not undefined we wouldn't need to make transformation to the functions to find the limit

>>2729966
dont forget:

>>2729517

>shh, im pissing off idiots who didnt notice i brought up "divide by zero" to derail the thread.

>>2729973
Could you please point out which step in the proof that you disagree with? If it's not formal enough, I can spruce it up if you want. My conclusion is that
>lim as x->inf of 1/x does not goes to inf.
Thus I did give a proof that lim as x->inf of 1/x does not goes to inf.

>>2729974
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/You_are_mad

>>2729975
The answer is undefined in terms of the Real numbers. Notice how I've been trying to be careful and not say
lim as x->0+ of 1/2 = inf
Instead saying "goes to inf". It's not equality in the usual sense of the term, but "a limit goes to infinity" has a very precise definition, given else-thread. Under that precise formulaic definition, VP is clearly wrong.

>>2729979
should be:

>lim as x->0 of 1/x does not goes to inf.

how do you not understand this?

>>2729987
and i meant, it is wrong if you look at what you are SUPPOSED to.

lim as x->0 of 1/x DOES to inf.

>>2729986
I'm assuming he's referring to this to say it exists (the top half):>>2729952

Not that he was clear about it. Then again he's been implying its real in the first place, despite proofs and definitions of limits.

>>2729987
Oh. My bad. Just typoed now. Let me fix that.

>Could you please point out which step in the proof that you disagree with? If it's not formal enough, I can spruce it up if you want. My conclusion is that
> >lim as x->0 of 1/x does not goes to inf.
>Thus I did give a proof that lim as x->0 of 1/x does not goes to inf.

Sorry.

>>2729987
Get out of /sci/, /b/troll.

>>2729995
>Thus I did give a proof that lim as x->0 of 1/x does not goes to inf.

completely fucking wrong.

1/1 = 1
1/0.5 =2
1/0.1 = 10

as the denominator approaches zero, the value approaches infinity.

THIS IS BASIC LEVEL MATHS.

holy fucking shit you cannot be this dumb.

>>2729995
Waiting for one of:

1- point out where you disagree with my proof. Again, I'm willing to spruce it up to be (more) correct and more formal.

2- Accept that lim as x->0 of 1/x does not go to inf.

>>2730006
Except that's not how calculus works. Didn't they teach you anything in calc 1?

I could also demonstrate that
> 1 / -1 = -1
> 1 / -0.1 = -10
> 1 / -0.01 = -100
> Thus 1/0 = negative infinity
But that would be wrong.

The best answer of why you're wrong is still my rather lengthy proof else-thread.

>>2730006
1/-1=-1
1/-.5=-2
1/-.000005=-200000

See where i'm going with this?

>>2729974
I agree with everything you are saying. You are 100% valid in your proof and limit statement, but my original argument with VP was that 1/0 in theory equals infinity. In math it does, but I'm more interested in applications and real life examples. Math is theoretical bro. Just because the sum of a series as n approaches infinity will equal a number, in the real world it won't ever actually equal that value because it will never reach it.

>>2730013
>The best answer of why you're wrong is still my rather lengthy proof else-thread.

oh im sorry, you mean the one which proved nothing and made you look like an idiot?

>>2730015
i am glad you can see my point.

>>2730016
>1/0 in theory equals infinity
No. 1/x goes to infinity as x goes to 0+, that is 0 from the "positive" or "right" side. It goes to neg inf as x goes to 0-, that is 0 from the "negative" or "left" side. Thus 1/x does not go to infinity as x goes to 0, that is from both sides.

Having said that, math is all in our heads. It's all quite abstract. It has great utility for describing the natural world, which, let's leave that troll thread for a different thread, but the point is that the correctness of math is largely arbitrary.

>>2730028
>oh im sorry, you mean the one which proved nothing and made you look like an idiot?
You mean the one where I owned your stupid ass with a formal math proof that is likely beyond you? Even though it's basic calc 1?

>>2730035
you are honestly trying to say that:

"1/1 = 1
1/0.5 =2
1/0.1 = 10

as the denominator approaches zero, the value approaches infinity"

is wrong...?

and you dont see why you come across as a complete turd who failed year 8?

somebody is getting trolled and i think i know who

>>2730033
I apologize for not specifying which direction i was reading the function. How about this lim as x goes to 0 of 1/x equals +-infinity. That better? Just because I'm too lazy and assumed you knew i was reading the function from the positive side of the x axis doesn't mean I don't have a firm understanding of Cal 1. Limits are the first fucking thing you do, except for maybe the definition of the derivitive.

>>2730044
http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=-inf+%3D+inf

If it helps you sleep better at night.

>>2730044
>you are honestly trying to say that:
>"1/1 = 1
>1/0.5 =2
>1/0.1 = 10
>as the denominator approaches zero, the value approaches infinity"
>is wrong...?
Yes. That line of argument is wrong. Most importantly, it's wrong because I provided a rigorous math proof that demonstrated that it is wrong. In a more colloquial sense, it's also wrong because you didn't evaluate the limit from both sides.

>and you dont see why you come across as a complete turd who failed year 8?
Calc is usually taught in year 12 in the US, or in early college. Not sure where you went to school, but if you're serious about having calc conversations, you should really go retake it.

You all suck.
Its obviously 11.

>1 + 1
>124 posts omitted.
flawless victory

>>2730050
Yes me. It's relaxing arguing with a troll who has no recourse though. I like watching them squirm.

>>2730059
>Implying most of this hasn't been about a troll and dividing by zero.

>>2730044
he proved you wrong bro. as the denominator approaches 0 underneath the numerator of a positive real number, it may equal infinity. but you have to take into account from which way you are approaching 0. From the negative or positive of the x-axis. Thats why you are wrong because the way you stated it, says that infinity = -infinity. and that is about as far from equal as it gets bro.

>>2730060
lol, squirm.

lets recap some of the beauties in the thread:
>(because im going to be a troll and say divide by zero = infinity)
>i should know, as i am a published mathemagician with a phd.
>take it from someone with 70 years of industry experience

seriously...

yeah, i was "squirming" the whole time.

fullretard.jpg.

anyway, with that, im out, i have shit to do.

>>2730077
And thus the troll declares defeat. Science (and math) win again! Mwahahahahaha

>>2730035
lol
leave it be..
it's not like you can teach him by force
plus i suspect that this is aether...
just look at:
>>2729952
or >>2729453
that guy clearly doesn't know what he's talking about

>>2730079
you guys pretty much just fucked around on a science and math board on 4CHAN! for 2 fucking hours... I don't think anyone can call themselves the winner until they go outside.
>/Thread

>>2730077
>LOL I TROL U

>>2730089
You cannot take victory from me! I am Zim!

Ok, but really, I enjoy doing stuff like this. I don't consider it losing. I consider it a productive and entertaining way to spend my night on St Patties day, alone and spreading the word of correct math.

>>2730096
Good then, glad you are doing what you enjoy :)

Wow, this is truly one of my greatest trolls of 100+ threads.