Prove something

[Anonymous No.11140337]

[Anonymous No.11140341]

A = A

[Anonymous No.11140342]

>>11140337
x = .999...
10x = 9.999...
10x - x = 9.999... = .999...
9x = 9
x = 1
Therefore .999... = 1
QUOD ERAT DEMONSTRANDUM

[Anonymous No.11140345]

I will (and have) proven myself.

[Anonymous No.11140354]

If a=b, and b=c, and c=d, then a=d.
PROOF:
By transitivity, a=b and b=c imply a=c, and once again by transitivity, a=c and c=d imply a=d.

[Anonymous No.11140358]

Prove: If n + 2 = 5, n = 3

1. n + 2 = 5
2. -2 + n + 2 = -2 + 5
3. By commutativity: n + 2 - 2 = 5 - 2
4. Dividing both sides by 2: n/2 + 1 - 1 = 5/2 - 1
5. Recall that 1 - 1 = 1 + (-1), so: n/2 + 1 + (-1) = 5/2 - 1
6. Factoring out n: n(1/2 + 1/n + (-1/n)) = 5/2 - 1
7. 1/n + (-1/n) = 0, so: n(1/2) = 5/2 - 1
8. 5/2 - 1 = 5/2 - 2/2, which is 3, so:
9. n(1/2) = 3/2
10. Dividing both sides by 1/2: n(1/2) / (1/2) = 3/2 / 1/2
11. n = 3/2 * 2/1 = 3/1
12. it can be shown that 3/1 = 3, so n = 3

QED

[Anonymous No.11140365]

>>11140342
>9.9999... = .999...
false

[Anonymous No.11140367]

>>11140342
Suppose to the contrary that sqrt(2) is a rational number. This means that sqrt(2) = A/B with A/B being a fraction that is reduced to its lowest terms. This implies that 2=(A/B)^2 and that 2B^2=A^2. This means that A is an even number since 2 is even and only even numbers squared are even. If A is even, then A^2 is divisible by 4. If A^2 is divisible by 4, then B^2 and B are even. This contradicts our hypothesis since A/B with A and B being even is not a reduced fraction.
Therefore sqrt(2) is not rational.

[Anonymous No.11140393]

I'd prove there are no non-trivial solutions to x^c + y^c = z^c for c > 2, but the comment limit is too small to fit it in.

[Anonymous No.11140395]

>>11140354
7*0=0 0=2*0, so 7*0=2*0 so 7=2

[Anonymous No.11140396]

>>11140337
1. all ops are fags
2 ops is an op
3. op is an fag

[Anonymous No.11140397]

>>11140393
based and fermat pilled

[Anonymous No.11140466]

S1 = 1-1+1-1+1... = 1/2
S2 = 1-2+3-4+5...
2S2 = 1+(-2+1)+(3-2)+(-4+3)...= 1-1+1-1+1... = S1
S2 = 1/4
S3 = 1+2+3+4+5...
S3-S2 = 0+4+0+8+0+....
S3-S2 = 4(1+2+3+4...)
S3-S2=4S3
-3S3 = S2
-3S3 = 1/4
S3 = 1+2+3+4+... = -1/12

[Anonymous No.11140473]

>>11140337
P = NP

[Anonymous No.11140518]

1. All women are whores
2. Whores should be imprisoned
3. All women should be imprisoned

[Anonymous No.11140527]

>>11140395
>7*0=2*0
true
>7=2
false, cant divide by zero

[Anonymous No.11140534]

>>11140518
based

[Anonymous No.11140576]

>>11140337
Ac proinde haec cognitio, ego cogito, ergo sum, est omnium prima et certissima, quae cuilibet ordine philosophanti occurrat.

[Anonymous No.11140583]

>>11140337
All men are mortals
Violets are blue
Therefore OP is a faggot.

[Anonymous No.11140596]

>>11140473
That's not a proof.

>P = NP
>1 = N
>=>
>N != 1 => P! = NP

[Anonymous No.11140672]

Disprove something

[Anonymous No.11140700]

>>11140672
>irrational number raised to an irrational power is always irrational
Disproof: sqrt(2) is irrational. sqrt(2)^sqrt(2) is either irrational or rational. If it's rational, we're done. Otherwise (sqrt(2)^sqrt(2))^sqrt(2)=sqrt(2)^2 = 2 is irrational number to an irrational power.

[Anonymous No.11140703]

>>11140672
Tooker where you at

[Anonymous No.11140705]

>>11140337
>reflexivity is redundant in the definition of an equivalence relation
Pick some x. We want to prove x~x. Let y be such that x~y. Then by symmetry, y~x. Then, by transitivity, x~y and y~x implies x~x. QED

[Anonymous No.11140713]

>>11140700
is this bait

[Anonymous No.11140717]

>>11140713
No, it's a valid proof.

[Anonymous No.11140718]

>>11140713
it actually isn't

[Anonymous No.11140737]

>>11140705
>Let y be such that x~y
prove that you can find such a y

[Anonymous No.11140744]

>>11140717
>non-constructive
>valid proof

[Anonymous No.11140745]

>>11140737
Left as an exercise to the incel while I fuck Stacy.

[Anonymous No.11140787]

Let E be the sentence "Epstein didn't kill himself". Let A be the sentence "If A, then E".

Assume A is true. Then "If A, then E" is true. Thus by modus ponens E is true.
So we have now proven that "If A, then E" is true, but that means A is also true and again by modus ponens E is true.
Therefore we can conclude that Epstein didn't kill himself.

[Anonymous No.11140791]

>>11140744
enginneer spotted

[Anonymous No.11140793]

>>11140396
This.

[Anonymous No.11140797]

>>11140787
>Your proof is stupid. Go away. I'm dead.

[Anonymous No.11140803]

>>11140337
OP is a faggot.
Proof by observation and hypothesis induction by means of Occam's razor.

[Anonymous No.11140829]

Proof of 1+1=2
Axion: 1 is a number
Define succesor of a number n as n + 1
Define 2 as successor of 1
Therefore: 1+1 = 2

[Anonymous No.11140830]

>>11140396

[Anonymous No.11140832]

>>11140337
>>11140337
Brown dwarves have clouds that behave like sun spots. Probably meaning that sun spots on the sun are clouds moving over a liquid surface. Awkward moment when astrophysicists should probably rewind clock 100 years and consider pre-gas theories of stars.

[Anonymous No.11140837]

>>11140832
>brown
>gas
>moving over a liquid surface
Anon, this is a SFW board.

[Anonymous No.11140840]

>>11140700

[Anonymous No.11140848]

>>11140518
> A=>C
> B=>C
> A=B
>implying

[Anonymous No.11140854]

>>11140700
thats not a proof u nerd

[Anonymous No.11140855]

>>11140840
What's wrong? I thought it was a nice proof.

[Anonymous No.11140865]

>>11140854
Yes it is, brainlet.

[Anonymous No.11140871]

>>11140848
you seem to just be putting in random letters man, lemme fix that for ya
> A=>B
> B=>C
> A=C

[Anonymous No.11140877]

>>11140791
constructivism isn't about construction workers, anon.

[Anonymous No.11140883]

>>11140518
b&rp

[Anonymous No.11140895]

>>11140797
The opposite of hasn‘t killed himself is not necessarily is alive, brainlet

[Anonymous No.11140896]

>>11140865
Everything after "otherwise" does not follow from your first argument

[Anonymous No.11140901]

>>11140871
Thx me man, I stupid read that as
>all women are whores
>all women should be imprisoned
>all women are whores
wew lad

[Anonymous No.11140908]

>>11140896
Just reviewed it again, everything is absolutely correct. Which part exactly confuses you? Exponentiation rules? Remember, (a^b)^c = a^(bc)

[Anonymous No.11140920]

>>11140700

[Anonymous No.11140921]

>>11140466
SO SO WRONG!!!

Even if we assume for a second that the sum actually converges to -1/12, how can you verify it?
For instance, if i give you a series 1+2+3+4+5…. and ask you to stop at 10.

What will you have?

[10(10+1)]/2 which equals 55. right?

so the formula is n(n+1)/2.

but if this is so…then at any countable point, according to this (and my special intuition) the sum should be always ALWAYS less than -1/12.

And this my friend…is never ever possible.

2 mathematical quantities n^2/2 and n/2 both greater than zero will just add up and give you a negative number???

NONSENSE!!!


>S3-S2 = 0+4+0+8+0+....
This is the point from where everything went wrong. every single thing.

Lets analyse that part carefully.

The series 4+8+12+16… is of LENGTH EXACTLY EQUAL TO 1/4 OF THE SERIES 1+2+3+4+5….

Read that again. but slowly. yeah I indirectly said that an infinity is four times grater than another infinity.
If you are not able to digest this, read ahead. And if you did, congo!! you may skip the next part of this answer.

Since the length of S1=4+8+12+16… is 1/4 times S2=1+2+3+4+5…

The idea of take a factor 4 common is bullshit.

Why?
If we do so S_1 becomes 4(1+2+3+4+5…)
And here, 1+2+3+4+5…is NOT EQUAL TO S2.

So fuck you and your Ramanujan antics

[Anonymous No.11140927]

>>11140908

[Anonymous No.11140935]

>>11140927
you forgot the parenthese, fren

[Anonymous No.11140940]

>>11140927
[eqn]\big(\sqrt{2}^{sqrt{2}}\big)^sqrt{2}=\sqrt{2}^2\neq\sqrt{2}^{\sqrt{2}^\sqrt{2}}[/eqn]
you absolute smoothbrain

[Anonymous No.11140942]

>>11140927
[eqn]\big(\sqrt{2}^{\sqrt{2}}\big)^sqrt{2}=\sqrt{2}^2\neq\sqrt{2}^{\sqrt{2}^\sqrt{2}}[/eqn]
you absolute smoothbrain

[Anonymous No.11140947]

>>11140927
woof. third time is the charm.
[eqn]\big(\sqrt{2}^{sqrt{2}}\big)^\sqrt{2}=\sqrt{2}^2\neq\sqrt{2}^{\sqrt{2}^\sqrt{2}}[/eqn]

[Anonymous No.11140952]

>>11140947
>>11140927
fuck me. you get the point.

[Anonymous No.11140953]

>>11140935
>>11140942
>>11140947
u guys are super smart
good thing i was trolling the whole time
the true error in his proof is that q^q'. where q and q' are irrational, is not necessarily an irrational number: http://mathonline.wikidot.com/irrational-powers-of-irrational-numbers
outplayed, nerds

[Anonymous No.11140956]

>>11140953
>the true error in his proof is that q^q'. where q and q' are irrational, is not necessarily an irrational number
but...that is exactly what his proof sets out to demonstrate

[Anonymous No.11140961]

>>11140927
>>11140947
That's not what I did in the proof, brainlet. Learn to read.
>>11140953
>the true error in his proof is that q^q'. where q and q' are irrational, is not necessarily an irrational number
That's what I claimed I was proving you absolute mong! The link you posted recounts the same exact proof. Absolute fucking retard.

[Anonymous No.11140965]

>>11140956
What? He is trying to disprove "sqrt(2) is irrational." by using an unsound proof? A disproof is just a proof of the opposite. I don't see this here.

[Anonymous No.11140977]

>>11140965
No he isn't.
>irrational number raised to an irrational power is always irrational
is what he is disproving. learn 2 read. his proof is sound.
https://www.cut-the-knot.org/do_you_know/irrat.shtml

[Anonymous No.11140994]

>>11140341
I assert that A =/= A and you can't prove otherwise.

>b-but muh if A is 1 then 1 = 1

Nope you can't prove that 1 = 1

>but it's an axiom
Nope, prove it.

>b-b-b-ut.... b-but muh... A+2 = 3 and 1+2=3
Nope prove it.

[Anonymous No.11140995]

>>11140358
elegant proof, anon. It truly brings out the beauty in mathematics.

[Anonymous No.11140997]

>>11140995
fuck you

[Anonymous No.11141055]

>>11140994
Axiom: there exists and identity. Name it O or {}. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom_of_extensionality

[Anonymous No.11141269]

>>11140358
kek

[Anonymous No.11141275]

>>11141055

I said no axioms allowed.
You can't prove it's an axiom.
The identity axiom of extensionality was contrived and *never* proven.
BTFO as FUCK dude...!!!

[Anonymous No.11141281]

>>11141275
>No axioms allowed
Prove it.

[Anonymous No.11141283]

>>11141281
You are the one trying to prove something loser. You can't tell me to prove a negative, you prove yourself first you schizo.

[Anonymous No.11141284]

>>11141283
>You can't tell me to prove a negative
Prove it

[Anonymous No.11141297]

>>11140921
>brainlet doesn't understand summation

[Anonymous No.11141303]

>>11141284
Congrats you lost the argument and gave up yet again.

[Anonymous No.11141377]

>>11141303
Can I take that as an axiom?

[Anonymous No.11141391]

Pee Pee =/= Poo Poo

[Anonymous No.11141397]

>>11141297
fuck off ramanujan come to india so i can kick your ass

[Anonymous No.11141403]

>>11141275
You didn't say no axioms allowed
But, if no axioms allowed, i challenge you to prove something without axioms
>Failure
that's what i thought, nerd

[Anonymous No.11141405]

>>11141397
>brainlet chimps out

[Anonymous No.11141456]

>>11140396
But, the Homophobia.

Why the homophobia?

[Anonymous No.11142551]

>>11141456
What phobia?

[Anonymous No.11142578]

I claim that OP is a faggot.
Pf: >>11140337
QED.

[Anonymous No.11142582]

this post exists and you are reading it.

[Anonymous No.11142590]

>>11140994
proven by evidence

[Anonymous No.11142595]

>>11142582
nah it goes: you are reading this post and therefore it exists

[Anonymous No.11142620]

>>11140518

[Anonymous No.11142624]

>>11140337
1+1=2

[Anonymous No.11142632]

I cannot think or comprehend of anything more cucked than having a daughter. Honestly, think about it rationally. You are feeding, clothing, raising and rearing a girl for at least 18 years solely so she can go and get ravaged by another man. All the hard work you put into your beautiful little girl - reading her stories at bedtime, making her go to sports practice, making sure she had a healthy diet, educating her, playing with her. All of it has one simple result: her body is more enjoyable for the men that will eventually fuck her in every hole.

Raised the perfect girl? Great. Who benefits? If you're lucky, a random man who had nothing to do with the way she grew up, who marries her. He gets to fuck her tight pussy every night. He gets the benefits of her kind and sweet personality that came from the way you raised her.

As a man who has a daughter, you are LITERALLY dedicating at least 20 years of your life simply to raise a girl for another man to enjoy. It is the ULTIMATE AND FINAL cuck. Think about it logically

[Anonymous No.11142633]

>>11142632
Look, I found a creep!

[Anonymous No.11142667]

>>11142632
I was writing a reply to you but in the middle of it I realised I was wrong. What a fucking red pill bomb you dropped there mate.

[Anonymous No.11142690]

>>11140341
Based

[Anonymous No.11142692]

>>11142632
You raise her so she picks a man you want paying for your retirement home. You are essentially grooming your Daughter by raising her.

[Anonymous No.11142693]

>>11142692
Prove it!

[Anonymous No.11142992]

>>11142632
but you will most likely get a son in law that will be better looking and more successful than your own son

[Anonymous No.11143000]

>>11141377
HOLY FUCK BTFO

[Anonymous No.11143001]

>>11142590
Wrong.

[Anonymous No.11143481]

>>11142620
Brutal

[Anonymous No.11143782]

>>11142632
You presume its impossible to not raise a daughter to become a slut

[Anonymous No.11145148]

>>11140337
I can has tendies?

[Anonymous No.11145473]

>>11140337
The most true statement:
Being is

[Anonymous No.11145497]

op is a fag
and the proof is this thread

[Anonymous No.11145546]

>>11140466
>S1 = 1-1+1-1+1... = 1/2
false

[Anonymous No.11145599]

>>11141456
Faggy

[Anonymous No.11146339]

>>11140395
You retard

[Anonymous No.11146347]

>>11140337
Gogito ergo sum

[Anonymous No.11146514]

>>11140994
The worst part is you can't even ask for him to prove A=/=A because that would be proving a negative

[Anonymous No.11146517]

>>11140337
It was cold today, that proves global warming is a hoax.

[Anonymous No.11146523]

>>11140337
Yes.
That's the universal proof. That's all you need

[Anonymous No.11146589]

>>11140337
There exists a set.
Proof:
Consider the empty set.

[Anonymous No.11146622]

>>11140705
Doesn't work, the empty relation must, for example, be excluded if you don't require reflexivity...

[Anonymous No.11146630]

>>11146589
elegant

[willowo !!WLiEhST7Trn No.11146643]

>>11140337
P=NP
N=1

[Anonymous No.11146659]

>>11146643
You forgot that P can be 0

[Anonymous No.11146662]

>>11140994
= is a symbol that means equal to. The first A is clearly different from the first one, since the second one has the first one as context, whilst the first one doesn't have the second as context. So exact equalities, considering the context in which any such claim is made are impossible, but, since it is only a symbol, we can use it for imperfect inequalities if the context of the =sign indicates in which sense they must be equal. In that sense, we can say that 1 = 1 as integers, natural numbers, drawings, letters and so on, and so forth. So, since you claim A =/= A, there is sufficient context that you don't mean A as any variable or that you don't mean that both sides of the equality sign evaluate to be the same, given some context in which we can evaluate terms. Thus, I ask you to specify, what do A and = mean? Because if you claim that = is an ordinary equals sign, then, I'm pretty sure, for any mathematical context in which we can interpret A=A, this will be true.

[Anonymous No.11146667]

>>11141456
Have you ever been to 4chan before?

[Anonymous No.11148536]

>>11140337
P=NP

Because I FUCKING SAID SO.

QED

[Anonymous No.11148725]

Bump

[Anonymous No.11149015]

1+1=2
plus (S 0) (S 0) = S (S 0)
S plus (S 0) 0 = S (S 0)
S ( S plus 0 0) = S (S 0)
S (S 0) = S (S 0)

[Anonymous No.11150706]

>>11140342
Quod Erat Demondipshit