Disprove me, plebs.

[Anonymous No.9939248]

√2=...
Proof (according to modern analysis):
√2=1.4142...
√2=1.414...
√2=1.41...
√2=1.4...
√2=1...
√2=...

I call this the “dot dot dot” law. It’s a very beautiful technique that simplifies all of mathematics. As is shown using so called “real numbers”, one can obviously use some algorithm to calculate digits of an “irrational number” and have it run for an infinite amount of time, obviously, however, some people have a hard time accepting this. That is fine, I still have something for both the folks who accept it and those who reject it, using the “dot dot dot” law (DDD law) we can come to the conclusion that say 1/2=... or 1+1=... Now you might say, “What! You can’t just write a bunch of dots! You have to calculate it!” But the reality is — as modern analysis has show us — that you can in fact write a “bunch of dots” because it is trivial to write the answer in its entirety, it is trivial to calculate 1+1 and in fact it is trivial to calculate anything at all.. We can simply imagine using a technique to calculate it without actually doing it. For now “...” will suffice.

[Anonymous No.9939250]

Can you link the video where that is from?

[Anonymous No.9939257]

>>9939250
Well, I came up with the proof in the text myself but if you’re talking about pic related then here : https://youtu.be/lcIbCZR0HbU

[Anonymous No.9939472]

high iq thread

[Anonymous No.9939490]

>>9939248
You may not like it but this is what peak intelligence looks like. You want the square root of 2? Well, just invent a solution of x^2 - 2 = 0 !

[Anonymous No.9939550]

>>9939248
There is nothing to disprove. "..." Simply means the continuation of some rule. There are several known rules that describe sqrt(2) completely:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Square_root_of_2#Series_and_product_representations

[Anonymous No.9939601]

>>9939550

[Anonymous No.9939726]

>[math]\sqrt{2} = 1.41...[/math]
>[math]\sqrt{2} = 1.4...[/math]
>[math]\sqrt{2} = 1...[/math]
>[math]\sqrt{2} = ...[/math]
>[math]\sqrt{...} = ...[/math]
>[math]... = ...[/math]
>[math]... ... ...[/math]

[Anonymous No.9939732]

>>9939726
:O

[Anonymous No.9939736]

>>9939472
yah

[Anonymous No.9939744]

>e^((pi)(i)) = -1

>with theorems derived from previous proofs itt

>(pi)(i) = ln(...)

>(pi)(i) = ...

>further analysis concludes:

>... = ...

>... ... ...

QED

[Anonymous No.9939752]

>>9939257
lol why does he look like a crackhead?

[Anonymous No.9939776]

>>9939248

This is the best thing I have seen on this board in years.

This is so beautiful. I love you. I want to have babies with you.

I am going to answer every exam question with ... from now on. Everything, not just maths but physics, history, English, everything.

If anyone tries to give me a grade of anything less than 100% I am going to take them to court where I will conclusively demonstrate that they are being trivial. I cant wait to see the look on their retarded faces when the Judge awards me massive amount of money for damages. Serves those asshats right. I will buy the houses they once lived in and decorate them all with some horrendous color scheme. Then I will invite their mothers and sisters over and fuck them while taking pics of the whole sordid scene. Then I will make some prints and drive around and find their homeless asses. Imagine their horror when they see I have redecorated what was once their own bedroom in some sort of awful 1970's vogue.

Are you married, btw? I am willing to change my gender to suit.

[Anonymous No.9939810]

>>9939776
Are u pedo? Pay attention to the implication here im trying to be subtle

[Anonymous No.9939814]

>>9939744
Don't copy me, faggot

[Anonymous No.9939819]

>>9939726
A good student of my DDD law.

[Anonymous No.9939824]

>>9939814
OP here, since I came up with the proof I choose to name such solutions which result from the DDD law “Anonymous solutions”.

[Anonymous No.9939826]

This is why i come to /sci/

[Anonymous No.9939966]

>>9939814
>faggot
Why the homophobia though?

[Anonymous No.9940005]

What is 1/3?

[Anonymous No.9940008]

>>9940005
The DDD law makes it trivial to answer what “1/3” is... (you would’ve keked if you paid attention to detail.)

[Anonymous No.9940119]

>>9939248

The point OP is making here is that if an approximation is good enough for √2, then an approximation is good enough for anything. It follows then that

1 = ...
2 = ...
etc

We live in a brave new world. All problems in Maths and Science that have stumped the brightest minds for generations can now be solved through the "DDD law", although I am sure in time it will become known as "The OP is a Raving Faggot Law"

[Anonymous No.9940125]

>>9940119
>The point OP is making here is that if an approximation is good enough for √2
√2=1.4142... is not an approximation, brainlet.

[Anonymous No.9940138]

>>9939776
as your teacher, i would grade your test with a score of ...

[Anonymous No.9940163]

>>9940119
OP. Of course I do not believe this is a good thing for mathematics but currently that’s how it is. With the way math is today, my proof is 100% correct. However I much prefer Wildberger’s notation for irrationals which accepts the fact that simply writing √2=1.414... is rather problematic and ambiguous. See pic related for a rational solution.

[Anonymous No.9940165]

>>9939601
pi*e = limit as k-> inf of 4k/u(k)^2 where u(1)=0, u(2)=1, u(k+2) = u(k+1) + u(k)/(2k)

[Anonymous No.9940224]

>>9939248
.../10

[Anonymous No.9940230]

>>9940224
Are you trying to look smart by complexifying division? Here’s how it’s done buddy: .../10=.../...=...=the solution is trivial=[blank]

[Anonymous No.9940231]

>>9939248
What the FUCK is this guy's problem with irrational numbers? It is NOT written in the heavens that all numbers be totally expressible in decimal form.

>mfw this canadian retard produces another video

[Anonymous No.9940240]

>>9940231
Look at my proof, isn’t it obvious to you that “irrational numbers” as you call them (they actually don’t exist) are ambiguous? π×e=πe, ...×...=......

[Anonymous No.9940244]

>>9940240
1 = a
2 = a
Therefore 1 and 2 are ambiguous. Prove me wrong.

[Anonymous No.9940254]

>>9940125

>√2=1.4142... is not an approximation, brainlet.

> makes an approximation, denies it is an approximation

Quick, everyone laugh at this ignorant retard!

[Anonymous No.9940256]

>>9940240
Yes, "proof". Dude, what you are criticizing is about representation, not the number itself.
1/3 = 0.333...
1/3 = ...

[Anonymous No.9940257]

>>9940254
What is the difference between √2 and 1.4142...

[Anonymous No.9940262]

>>9940257

The left side is an unsolved equation, the right side is an approximation to that unsolved equation

[Anonymous No.9940266]

>>9940262
If it's an approximation, what is its error?

[Anonymous No.9940276]

>>9939248
>it is trivial to calculate anything at all
there are some people on earth that i wish i could kill with my bear hands

[Anonymous No.9940278]

>>9940276
Do you slide your hands into the bear hands like gloves or do you just grab onto them and swing the claws around?

[Anonymous No.9940572]

>>9940266

Irrelevant. It shouldn't be expressed as an equation in the first place because it is clearly not equal, which is the point behinds OP's post.

You can not say √2 = 1.4142... because there is no equivalence. Both sides are undefined and can not be measured. There is no precisely defined solution to √2, just an approximation, which works fine in the practical world as far as its engineering tolerances are concerned. But in the abstract world of pure mathematics it is absolute nonsense and as erroneous as claiming that 1 + 1 = 3

[Anonymous No.9940689]

>>9940276
Dont get mad at me, blame modern analysis, blame Hilbert.

[Anonymous No.9940693]

>>9940262
Lrn2equation fgt pls

[Anonymous No.9940721]

>>9940693

Imbecile pls, what do you think a fraction is?

Fuckwits these days, more of them all the time.

[Anonymous No.9940797]

>>9940721
You're such a dumb nigger. An EQUAtion must have an EQUAL sign. sqrt(2) is not an equation

[Anonymous No.9940928]

>>9940257
[math]\sqrt{2}[/math] is a real, irrational number, and 1.4142... is a approximation of the value of [math]\sqrt{2}[/math] .

[Anonymous No.9940934]

[math] my iq is beyond you peons [/math]
[math] ..................................................................................................................................................................................................... ........ .................... ...................... ............ ...... ....................... [/math]

[Anonymous No.9941184]

>>9940928
No it isn’t modern analysis claims that infinite string of digits that we have to imagine IS actually √2, do you see now why it’s so ambiguous? Very problematic.

[Anonymous No.9941327]

>>9940572
>Irrelevant. It shouldn't be expressed as an equation in the first place because it is clearly not equal, which is the point behinds OP's post.
If it's not equal, what is the difference between the two? You can't provide one because they're is no difference and they are equal.

>You can not say √2 = 1.4142... because there is no equivalence.
√2 = 1.4142...

>Both sides are undefined and can not be measured. There is no precisely defined solution to √2, just an approximation, which works fine in the practical world as far as its engineering tolerances are concerned.
I gave you precise definitions in >>9939550. Why are you ignoring the definitions and pretending they don't exist?

[Anonymous No.9941332]

>>9940928
If it's an approximation, what is the error?

[Anonymous No.9941333]

>>9941184
How is it ambiguous or problematic?

[Anonymous No.9941432]

>>9941332
there is no error.

[Anonymous No.9941446]

>>9941184
[math] \sqrt{2} \approx 1.41[/math]
This is quite clear and not problematic in the least.

[Anonymous No.9941475]

After reading this thread I may now know why Pythagoras may have had this faggot killed.

[Anonymous No.9941479]

>>9941432
Then it's not an approximation and they're equal.

[Anonymous No.9941484]

>>9941479
Of course they're not equal, its a approximation of an irrational number.

I don't understand what you're getting at?

[Anonymous No.9941488]

>>9941484
You just said there's no error, so it's not an approximation. You're contradicting yourself, meaning your argument is invalid.

[Anonymous No.9941520]

>>9941488
No, I said there was no error, [math]\sqrt{2} \approx 1.41[/math].
OP is a fag for trying to say that there is some kind of issue with saying [math]\sqrt{2} = 1.4[/math] when if you use it like that then you are clearly in some sort of context where its easier to just set them equal than to approximate them because everyone just understands implicitly that what you mean when you say that they're "equal" is that our approximate value of [math]\sqrt{2}[/math] is [math]1.4...[/math] and for the purposes of whatever the fuck you are doing with it, they're practically equal.

[Anonymous No.9941539]

{{}, {{}}, {{}, {{}}}, {{}, {{}}, {{}, {{}}}}, {{}, {{}}, {{}, {{}}}, {{}, {{}}, {{}, {{}}}}}, {{}, {{}}, {{}, {{}}}, {{}, {{}}, {{}, {{}}}}, {{}, {{}}, {{}, {{}}}, {{}, {{}}, {{}, {{}}}}}}, {{}, {{}}, {{},{{}}}, {{}, {{}}, {{}, {{}}}}, {{}, {{}}, {{}, {{}}}, {{}, {{}}, {{}, {{}}}}}, {{}, {{}}, {{},{{}}}, {{}, {{}}, {{}, {{}}}}, {{}, {{}}, {{}, {{}}}, {{}, {{}}, {{}, {{}}}}}}}}

[Anonymous No.9941558]

>>9941520
Don't ever reply to me again

[Anonymous No.9941609]

>>9941520
I agree that OP is a fag but I disagree that √2 = 1.4142... is an approximation. The "..." means that the string continues according to some rule. It is equal to √2 which is why an equal sign is used.

[Anonymous No.9942792]

Holy fuck....
Can I see a picture of your skull dude? I bet you've got a phenotype that would make Ol' Ed Witten look like pic related in comparison..

[Anonymous No.9943040]

>>9941609
I thought if it continued on some rule it had a line over the repeating digits.
Ex: [math] \frac{1}{3} = 0.\overline{33} [/math]