How is this possible? (Math Problem)
 

is the guy on the right holding a used condom?

you really should find something else to do with your day... :1orglaugh

I believe something starts getting fucked around 4th row.

a=0

simple misdirection when you tried to cancel out the variable a

On line 4 when you divide by (a-b), you're dividing by zero since a=b. Division by zero is undefined.

You cannot prove this while using the assumption to prove the proof.

This is correct 68% of the time.

28% of women know that.

We are all in a dream. Anything is possible.

fuck i've gt a sore head just lookin at that! :Oh crap

Exactly what I was thinking!

i think he's right...

row 4 is jacked up

You see the ripple in the Matrix as well?

meh fucking algebra , that's shit pissed me off big time in high school

yeah those algebraic rules they are following are not correct

on a more defined note if i have 5 apples and take away 4 apples i still have 5 apples :1orglaugh :1orglaugh :1orglaugh :pimp

wow at least some of you are intelligent

math is fucking lame....

(a+b) doesn't = b, a+a doesn't = a and 2a doesn't = a you twit. Substitute a REAL number and you'll see what crap that is.

It's not, now get back to work

yeh divide by zero. lol at used condom comment

There is no divsion in that. Please show me where the division is.

What soulbleed means is that to get to the final answer shown, you would have to divide both sides by a which is supposed to be assigned the value 0.

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

How in hell did they come there? This is not equal at all!

(a+b) != b

So, even before making the division by 0, the equation is fucked up.

If you start off with the assumption that a=0 and b=0, the logic works until the end.

you can factor a-b out if you state it is not equal to zero

the issue for me is where they divide a out of the question

they should have brought it over and then factored it out to show that a=0

a+a=a only when a=0

Therefore 0=0

yup, line 3 is essentially saying 0 = 0. anything less itself is zero.

The more formal definition of this invalid proof (ie. the one that isn't a sloppy photoshopped graphic) has the values 'a' and 'b' defined as non-zero qualities. Besides the division by zero, the proof is sound.

No it's not. You can't avoid the divison by ZERO. If a=b and from 4 to line 5you are dividing out (a-b) you are ALWAYS going to get ZERO no matter what non-zero numbner you use for a and b in the beginning.

It has too.

Use ANY number let's try 3

a=3 and a=b so b=3 so (a-b)=(3-3) which is ZERO.

Didn't someone prove that 1+1=3???

Yea... it was an affiliate trying to prove a sponsor was shaving.

To take a different route and disprove the logic, if on line 5 you were to subtract b from both sides, you would get a = 0.

Damn...just when I discovered the infinite digit in Pi - along comes THIS problem. :mad:

Non-linearity is a bitch.
http://www.military.cz/international...har2plus_4.jpg

"The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) is soliciting research proposals in the area of Micro Isotope Power Sources (MIPS). Proposed research should investigate innovative approaches that enable revolutionary advances in science, devices or systems. Specifically excluded is research which primarily results in evolutionary improvement to the existing state of practice... more

If not evolutionary, what then?

2hp

yea, i agree

now that you know it, how does it help you in real life besides wasting time?