/sci/ - Science & Math

Not doing homework.

>>9343411
So it's bullshit then.

>>9343414
Yes. Write that on your worksheet and delete this thread.

>>9343414
>normies and their attempts at reverse psychology
Get out!

>>9343424
i guess i'm right

>>9343427

-*-=+

>>9343431
Seriously, everyone just says "it's like this because it's like this" but never explain why.

>>9343408
A negative of a negative is a positive.
quod erat dēmonstrandum

a+a = a-(-a)
subtract a-(-a) from both sides
a+a-a-(-a) = 0
the +a and the -a cancel out
a+0-(-a) = 0
now remove the 0 on both sides with division
(a+0-(-a))/0 = 0/0 =1
a/0+0/0-(-a)/0 = 1
0 + 1 -0 = 1
1 = 1

solved it

>>9343441
Prove negative numbers exist.

Oh that's right, you can't.

>>9343439

>>9343442
but you divided by zero

>>9343448
>doesn't know how to divide by zero

>>9343408
prove a+a=2a
a pile of things included with another pile of things is a pile of 2 things

a-a
remove a pile of things from a pile of things, no things.

a-(-a)
remove the removal of a pile of things from another pile of things results in a pile of 2 things

the opposite of exclusion is inclusion

>>9343457
>remove the removal of a pile of things from another pile of things results in a pile of 2 things

Removing the removal would leave you with just 1 pile of things. Not doing the action of removing the pile is not the same as adding another pile.

>>9343463
I'm sorry to tell you this, anon, but you're retarded.

Imagine you're walking forward on a number line every time you add a number. When you hit a negative it's like turning around to walk the other way. Two negatives in a row makes you turn around twice and end up walking up the number line again.

>>9343470
He's not retarded. The "removal" metaphor was just bad.

>>9343470
i have a thing and get another thing = i have two thing

i have a thing and get rid of thing = i have no thing

i have a thing and not get rid of thing = i have a thing

>>9343471
This makes for me.

>>9343477
>binarity

>>9343483
makes sense*

>>9343408
a + a
= a + a + 0
= a + a + ((-a) - (-a))
= a + (a + (-a)) - (-a)
= a + 0 - (-a)
= a - (-a)

>>9343487
you're using the assumption that (-a) - (-a) = 0

you're begging the question

a+a=a+a
a+a-a=a
a+a=a-(-a)

>>9343493
Define n=-a
-a - (-a) = n - n = 0

>>9343487
>= a + (a + (-a)) - (-a)

What happened here?

>>9343497
This makes sense.

>>9343493
assumption? that's how subtraction is defined

>>9343441
>ē
nigger what

this question reduces to proving that (-1)*(-1) = 1

[math]
\begin{align*}
-1 * (-1 + 1) &= -1 * 0 \\
(-1)^2 + (-1) * 1 &= 0 \\
(-1)^2 &= 1
\end{align*}
[/math]

>>9343446
...

>>9343408
-(-a) -a = 0
adding a to both sides give you
-(-a) = a
So a -(-a) = a + a

>>9343493
The definition of a negative is that x - x = -x + x = 0

Substrate a from both sides
Multiply by -1 on both sides
Remove parentheses on right
Multiply by -1 again
a=a

>>9343719
Why is minus negative 1 the same as +1
yet ++1 does not equal negative one.

Negative numbers dont exist.

>>9343989
>forgot the QED brainlet

>>9343993
Negative numbers are a jewish construct to define debt. They didn't even exist as a concept until 200 years after jesus

>>9343408
add (-a) to both sides
a+a+(-a)=a-(-a)+(-a)
reduce inverses
a=a

prove runs in reverse

>>9343493
Yes, and why he shouldn't? it's reasonable to assume OP is working in some ring, where we know that for every x there is exactly one y (denoted by -x) st x+y=0

>>9343408
a + (-a) = 0
Therefore, a is the additive inverse of (-a)
hence: a = -(-a)
since a-(-a) is notation for a+(-(-a)) we have that
a-(-a) = a+(-(-a)) = a+a

>>9343408
a+ a = 2a
a-(a) = -2a
0 = 0
qaud demonstarum

>>9343493
yorue fucking retarded

>>9343493
>you're begging the question
you're right, here's the question. were you dropped on your head a lot?

>>9343408
a+a=a-(-a)
a+a=a+a
2a=2a

>>9343408

First of all,
>The reciprocal of -1 is -1 by definition so -1*-1 = 1.
>a=a*1 because 1 is the identity element for multiplication by definition
>a*(b*c) = (a*b)*c because multiplication is associative by definition
>(-1)*a = -a by the definition of additive inverse
>a + -a = a - a by the definition of subtraction

Now based on the above:
a + a = a + 1*a = a + (-1*-1)*a = a + (-1)*(-1*a) = a + -(-a) = a - (-a)

>>9343408
Let's start by assuming a and -(-a) are different values.
We know that for every element a in the real numbers there exists an element s.t. a-a=0 or for our purposes +(-a). Add that to both sides to yield: a+a+(-a) = a - (-a)+(-a). This gives a + (a+(-a))=a +0.
Means a+(-a)=0 or equivalently: a-a=a+(-a). Subtract -(-a) by the same logic of having an element to cancel the other you get a-a-(-a)=a+(-a)-(-a). Cancel the stuff on the left and right you end with -(-a)=a. Plug in and finish.

this thread is trash try harder
FAGGOTS FAGGOTS FAGGOTS FAGGOTS FAGGOTS FAGGOTS FAGGOTS FAGGOTS FAGGOTS FAGGOTS FAGGOTS FAGGOTS FAGGOTS FAGGOTS FAGGOTS FAGGOTS FAGGOTS FAGGOTS FAGGOTS FAGGOTS FAGGOTS FAGGOTS FAGGOTS FAGGOTS FAGGOTS FAGGOTS FAGGOTS FAGGOTS FAGGOTS FAGGOTS FAGGOTS FAGGOTS

>>9346267
brainlet spotted