Let what is cheap be equal to 1.
What is expensive be equal to 2.
Because cheap < expensive.
We all know genuinely cheap things are rare.
But what is rare is expensive.
Thus expensive things are cheap, and 1 = 2 (from the above).
So 1 + 1 = 1 + 2 = 3
SCIENCE MOTHERFUCKERS.
The above is just as valid as the 0.9999~ = 1 bullshit.
Name:
Anonymous2006-03-06 6:22
>>4
Um, no. Expensive things are rare. Maybe you live in Africa where everything is expensive though.
Name:
Anonymous2006-03-06 7:49
>>5
Saying "Rare things is expensive" is different from saying "Expensive things are rare" motherfucker. They're not mutually exclusive either.
Go back to Logic 101.
Name:
Anonymous2006-03-06 8:16
f: A => ℂ
A: unknown class of number
f( 1 + 1 ) = f ( 3 )
f( 2 ) = f ( 3 )
Q.E.D
Name:
Anonymous2006-03-11 2:07
is tis base 10:???????
Name:
Anonymous2006-03-11 13:59
>>8
Even if is lower or greater than base 10 this equation would be wrong if in real or complex class;
>>6
go back to grade school, equal signs are equivalence relations when used between sets; this entails reflexivity.
the problem is the group of assumptions made on the sets.
C = set of cheap things
E = set of expensive things
if we assume C and E are well defined:
the intersection of C and E is the null set, because things that are expensive are by definition not cheap.
G = set of genuinely cheap things
you could argue that g is not well defined, or that it is in fact equal to C, however assuming some cheap things are not genuinely cheap:
since G is a subset of C, the intersection of G and E is the null set.
apart from that:
R = the set of rare things.
this set is not a subset of E.
if C and E are not well defined because of their subjectivity, we cant use them to make arguments anyway.
0.999... is basically 1, though, because of it's silly representation. This is because if we have a number 0.999... then the number between that and 1 is smaller than any real number. So basically they are the same.
>>41
ln(1) is the power to which e would need to be represented in order to equal 1.
but
log base sqrt(1) of 1, i.e. the power to which sqrt(1) would need to be represented in order to equal 1, would be defined and not 0, and you can use any base log for that division.
>>50
Incorrect numbering. it is meant to be 1.999... and 1.111...
the '...' represent the endless number series
Name:
Anonymous2006-04-06 18:17
Let A be an algebra where:
1 and 3 are constant symbols
+ is a binop symbol
1+1=3 is an axiom
An infinite number of such algebras can be constructed.
Name:
Anonymous2006-04-07 3:59
>>52
Yes, they can, but to anyone but the maker of the algebra would see it as gibberish and the effort would be moot.
If 1 + 1 = 3 then 1 = 1.5, and since 1 = 1, then 1 != 1.5. Therefore, 1 + 1 != 3
Name:
Anonymous2006-04-07 5:04
1=0, 0=1, there is no 2, without 2 there is no 3
Name:
Anonymous2006-04-07 6:42
but 1 obviously does not = 0, because 1 is something, and 0 is nothing
>>53
he's saying something like, pretend 3 is the new 2, and 2 is the new three,
1 + 3 = 2
1 + 2 = 4
3 + 2 = 5
he's just pointing out the only way to really ever prove 1 = 2 would require changing the way we intepret the numbers.
Name:
Anonymous2006-04-07 12:26
it's called proof by contradiction, by making a stupid assumption, and showing how stupid the assumption is, therfore falsifying it.
>>15
Your use of sets is clearly flawed.
You haven't studied the great fluicity of calculus where if
a fuction is in a specific set of numbers there is a limit to which this function gets close to a number outside of it's own set and thus since numbers are themselfs functions of information it is not flawed that the a number cannot achive a number outside of it sets and even if two numbers of the same function in the same number set cannot achive a number outside of it's set. Thus, you should study the physics of how numbers can formulate in this real plane that we live in.