20 thoughts on “Where is your God now – meme (math style)”
Mike
The sad thing is being able to see where these ‘proofs’ go off track
Jeff
Some of these are really, really wrong.
asdf
You mean pretty much ALL of these are really wrong, Jeff?
allo
1) d/dx x is for variable x. just look at x_i, then fixed x has x_i = x_{i+1} getting delta = 0. variable has x_{i+1}=x_i+1 so its derivative is 1.
2) root-laws are no longer valid for complex numbers in this way
3) just stupid
4) dunno
5) logarithmic laws are no longer valid for complex exponents, because you would need to use the logarithm of cos(x)+isin(x)
6) i do not understand step 2 to 3
7) dunno
8) did you divide by 0?
9) oh, you discovered, that sine is cyclic. wow!
lets get serious…..women dont know math, but yeah this guy is stupid
thanos
6) moving parenthesis by one place right on the sequence ๐ ๐
lyloo
this post is just stupid…… ๐
hudbsvzuif
i*i = 1
cuz
-1*-1 = 1
Moe Badderman
Hidden due to low intellect rating. Click here to see.
Matt
i is the sq rt of -1 so that part is correct, i*i = (-1)^(1/2) * (-1)^(1/2) = (-1)^1 = -1
Javier
Just seen the explanation by allo. Let’s complete the rest.
4) Banach-Tarsky paradox deals with non-measurable sets, so they no preserve measure (volume in this case). For beginners: non-measurable sets are very strage sets that can exists mathematically, but no in the physic world.
7) the primitive or antiderivative is not a function. It’s a family of functions that differ in one constant.
leYaz
This page should have been named “Me paying attention to Math Fail”
What’s with your question about where He is? Have you ever asked where your reason or logic is (to understand deeper than you think)? The examples you gave aren’t good to expose about His existence. Otherwise Albert Einstein or other wise mathematician people shouldn’t have loved the mathematics. Come on, move on and don’t think you ever can win or go against the highest power of everything.
Jon
Whoever created these needs to take a topology class. I’m hoping the next proof shows that real numbers are countable.
Trav
… so many errors here.
1. Derivatives don’t work like that; you take the derivative of the function first, and them plug in values of x to determine the slope of the line tangent to the function at that particular value of x.
2. i^2 = -1, therefore, i^2*i^2 = -1*-1 = 1
3. The third one could be described an infinite series. รยฃ 1 + 0x from 1 to infinity = 1.
4. See Zeno’s paradox, it’s also very interesting.
5. The u and v substitutions are correct, but the integrand in the last step is incorrect. Integration by parts says this:
รขล f(x)*g(x)dx = u*v – รขล v*du. In the picture, it was set up as รขล u*dv
6. The first two equations have equal slope and if they were graphed, they would never intersect. Your erroneous answer means that “there are no real solutions.”
7. 2pi radians = 0 degrees. No units were included.
Trav
Looks like I made an error myself. I forgot the problem with Euler’s identity (e^pi*i).
3pi radians = pi radians. You forgot the units again.
Loading...
The sad thing is being able to see where these ‘proofs’ go off track
Some of these are really, really wrong.
You mean pretty much ALL of these are really wrong, Jeff?
1) d/dx x is for variable x. just look at x_i, then fixed x has x_i = x_{i+1} getting delta = 0. variable has x_{i+1}=x_i+1 so its derivative is 1.
2) root-laws are no longer valid for complex numbers in this way
3) just stupid
4) dunno
5) logarithmic laws are no longer valid for complex exponents, because you would need to use the logarithm of cos(x)+isin(x)
6) i do not understand step 2 to 3
7) dunno
8) did you divide by 0?
9) oh, you discovered, that sine is cyclic. wow!
lets get serious…..women dont know math, but yeah this guy is stupid
6) moving parenthesis by one place right on the sequence ๐ ๐
this post is just stupid…… ๐
i*i = 1
cuz
-1*-1 = 1
Hidden due to low intellect rating. Click here to see.
i is the sq rt of -1 so that part is correct, i*i = (-1)^(1/2) * (-1)^(1/2) = (-1)^1 = -1
Just seen the explanation by allo. Let’s complete the rest.
4) Banach-Tarsky paradox deals with non-measurable sets, so they no preserve measure (volume in this case). For beginners: non-measurable sets are very strage sets that can exists mathematically, but no in the physic world.
7) the primitive or antiderivative is not a function. It’s a family of functions that differ in one constant.
This page should have been named “Me paying attention to Math Fail”
OMG! someone divided by zero, literaly
Errors much? ๐
I did not notice before, but one guy tried to square root a negative โ
so this is how dumb people entertain themselves?
What’s with your question about where He is? Have you ever asked where your reason or logic is (to understand deeper than you think)? The examples you gave aren’t good to expose about His existence. Otherwise Albert Einstein or other wise mathematician people shouldn’t have loved the mathematics. Come on, move on and don’t think you ever can win or go against the highest power of everything.
Whoever created these needs to take a topology class. I’m hoping the next proof shows that real numbers are countable.
… so many errors here.
1. Derivatives don’t work like that; you take the derivative of the function first, and them plug in values of x to determine the slope of the line tangent to the function at that particular value of x.
2. i^2 = -1, therefore, i^2*i^2 = -1*-1 = 1
3. The third one could be described an infinite series. รยฃ 1 + 0x from 1 to infinity = 1.
4. See Zeno’s paradox, it’s also very interesting.
5. The u and v substitutions are correct, but the integrand in the last step is incorrect. Integration by parts says this:
รขล f(x)*g(x)dx = u*v – รขล v*du. In the picture, it was set up as รขล u*dv
6. The first two equations have equal slope and if they were graphed, they would never intersect. Your erroneous answer means that “there are no real solutions.”
7. 2pi radians = 0 degrees. No units were included.
Looks like I made an error myself. I forgot the problem with Euler’s identity (e^pi*i).
3pi radians = pi radians. You forgot the units again.