[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math


View post   

File: 42 KB, 562x720, pythagoras.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4025490 No.4025490 [Reply] [Original]

1 is the largest positive integer n.

Proof:
Suppose the largest positive integer n is larger than 1. Then n^2>n ,but n^2 is a positive integer too. Contradiction since n was assumed to be the largest positive integer. Thus n=1.

>> No.4025511

>start with what I'm trying to prove
>follow the logic...
>and we're back to what I started with trying to prove!
>see how right I am?

>> No.4025516

>>4025490
There is no largest positive integer to start with.
Has there is none, 1 can't be it.

>> No.4025517

>>4025511
>Has never heard of a proof by contradiction.

>> No.4025520

>>4025511
That's not why this proof is bs.

>> No.4025522

STUPID FAGGOT OP

1. nice circular logic
2. pic shows you have no concept of limits or fractals, as you repeat to infinity, the distance between any two points approaches infinity, dumb cumslurping faggot

>> No.4025528

>>4025490
>suppose the largest positive integer n is larger than 1
>the largest positive integer

Why does it exist?

>> No.4025544

<span class="math">\infty^{\infty}=\infty[/spoiler]
<span class="math">\infty>1[/spoiler]
Just saiyan.

>> No.4025546

>>4025528
>>the largest positive integer

>>Why does it exist?
He just proved it doesn't.

>> No.4025554

>>4025546
He proved that the largest integer must be absorbing for * and +, and left-absorbing for ^ (assuming positive integers).

>> No.4025556

>>4025544
Infinity is not a member of the integers.

>> No.4025559
File: 58 KB, 708x720, Bild 1.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4025559

>> No.4025584

>>4025554
But if 1+n = n then
1 = 1+0 = 1+(n+(-n)) = (1+n)+(-n) = n+(-n) = 0

>> No.4025593

>>4025584
>(1+n)+(-n) = n+(-n)
WUT?

>> No.4025601

>>4025593
What?

>> No.4025611

>2011
>believing 1 is positive

>> No.4025626

>>4025593
Substitution.

>> No.4025639

>>4025490
OP's pic is more interesting than his bad proof.

I've seen it before and can't express, mathematically, exactly what's wrong with it. Intuitively, it's obvious that increasing the number of "steps" doesn't change the length. It's interesting, though, that the area between the stairsteps and the straight line approaches zero. Seems paradoxical.

>> No.4025648

What does it mean, exactly, to "repeat to infinity"? Is the point (1/pi, 1/pi) on the line in figure 4?

>> No.4025660
File: 74 KB, 415x579, cutey_Emma-friends_with.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4025660

>>4025639
It's non-trivial and has to do with how (in what norm) the series converges.

>> No.4025671

>>4025648
>What does it mean, exactly, to "repeat to infinity"?
It means that for every ε>0. There is a N so that for all n>N the supremum of the distances between the curve of the n-th step and the hypotenuse is smaller than ε.
>Is the point (1/pi, 1/pi) on the line in figure 4?
Yes

>> No.4025672

That pic is obviously wrong. Everyone one can recognize the simple function x, for x=0..1 so integrate -> 1/2x^2 x=0..1 -> so the hypotoneuse = 1/2. Stupid pythagoras thinking it's sqrt(2) lol, what a tard.

>> No.4025675

>forgot to prove that a the integers have a largest element

>> No.4025679

>>4025672
this post made my evening

>> No.4025687

let n =2,
2^2=4
4>2
statement is true, and you proof is false

>> No.4025690

>>4025639
It's wrong because the "steps" remain steps, and never become a strait line. It might appear to be strait, but in reality it's just steps too small to see. Same reason .999... doesn't equal 1; it just approaches 1.

>> No.4025696

>>4025690
You cocksucker, get out of this thread and get out of /sci/ and never ever come back

>> No.4025706 [DELETED] 

> > Is the point (1/pi, 1/pi) on the line in figure 4?
> Yes
I'm not sure that's correct... The points on the graph are the "peaks" of the stair steps. Those points look like this:

n = 0: (0, 0), (1, 1)
n = 1: (0, 0), (1/2, 1/2), (1, 1)
n = 1: (0, 0), (1/4, 1/4), (1/2, 1/2), (3/4, 3/4), (1, 1)

In other words, they're all rationals.

>> No.4025711

> > Is the point (1/pi, 1/pi) on the line in figure 4?
> Yes
I'm not sure that's correct... The points on the graph are the "peaks" of the stair steps. Those points look like this:

n = 0: (0, 0), (1, 1)
n = 1: (0, 0), (1/2, 1/2), (1, 1)
n = 2: (0, 0), (1/4, 1/4), (1/2, 1/2), (3/4, 3/4), (1, 1)

In other words, they're all rationals.

>> No.4025715

>>4025711
Figure 4 is the limit. This means it is not a curved line a all. It is the hypotenuse. Though the length in figure 4 is not 2 anymore.

>> No.4025721

in OP's post, mister troll is making an infinite amount of infinitesimal errors, which amount to a non zero total error

>> No.4025737

>>4025690
>. Same reason .999... doesn't equal 1; it just approaches 1.
Oh boy, here we go.

>> No.4025792
File: 428 KB, 582x651, 1294653343676.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4025792

>>4025690
>Same reason .999... doesn't equal 1; it just approaches 1

>> No.4025817

>>4025715
It was never curved... which image are you talking about?

>> No.4025874
File: 327 KB, 495x498, 1304835090465.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4025874

>>4025690

>> No.4025885

>>4025490
there is no => between
>Suppose the largest positive integer n is larger than 1.
and
>n^2>n
so this is not contradiction proof