a = 1/b
b = 1/a
c = 1/ab
1/ab = 1/(1/b)(1/a)
1/(1/b)(1/a) = 1/(1/ab)
1/(1/ab) = ab <<<<WTF??? how did you get to the next step genius?
1/ab = ab
1/(1/ab) becomes ab, so really ab=ab not 1/ab reatrd. GTFO
Name:
Anonymous2007-10-28 14:35
>>8
Go back to line 4, put line 6 in on the RHS. You get straight to line 7 by multiplying lines 1 and 2 together. The only reason c was introduced was to confused retards like you. Unless OP is a bit retarded as well.
Name:
Anonymous2007-10-28 22:43
it's the maths between line 7 and 8 that is just fucked. When you divide one by a reciprocal, you end up with the reciprocal, so if he had done this proof correctly, even with defining a, b, and c as they are, it is still ab=ab. I think this guy is just a dipstick troll. let this one die, guys. sage.
Name:
Anonymous2007-10-30 9:53
>>10
Do you mean between line 6 and 7? I already explained that, you go back to line 4 and put the LHS of line 6 into the RHS of line 4, which are equal by line 5. You don't even need to do all that, just multiply line 1 by line 2.
It's the line that says "Now, COMPLETELY disregarding the original fractions assigned to A and B, let's begin anew:" that is wrong, as you only got the result 1/ab=ab by assuming the original definitions in lines 1 and 2.
This whole thing is stupid, although it does a good job of exposing the retards around here.
Name:
Anonymous2007-10-30 12:30
lol, R*
Name:
Anonymous2007-10-31 4:06
erm...
a = 1/b
b = 1/a
a = 1/(1/a)
a*b = 1/a * 1/(1/a) = a/a = 1 (a != 0).
something can equal something else....you're blowing my mind.
scary..wooooo....
Name:
Krieger2007-10-31 13:57
"1/(1/b)(1/a) = 1/(1/ab)
1/(1/ab) = ab
1/ab = ab"
You just made 1/(1/ab) into two different things from lines 1 to two on the right, then lines 2 to 3 on the left. You're saying 1/(1/ab)=ab=1/ab, and that doesn't work.
Name:
Anonymous2007-11-02 1:44
2 doen't equal 1/2 so 2 cannot satisfy the equations.