I can prove that 1 = 2!

[na_th_an]

That law doesn't exist. You can do someting similar using logarithms, but 1^0 won't work with log.

[Glenn]

(in this universe at least), but what about 1^0 doesn't work with logarithms?

log(1^0) = 0 * log(1) = 0

and log(1) itself is 0.

[citpes]

we use the power 0 equaling 1 in maths lectures the whole time to solve equations. it even works on a calculator. try it on the calculator on your computer.

proof that a^0=1

Code:

x^2
-----    =   1
x^2

no dispute there huh?
law of algerbra, same bases being divided, subtract indexs..

x^(2-2) = 1

x^0=1

[Glenn]

Who's disputing that a^0 = 1? (However, if it's a "law," there's no need to prove it. )

we use the power 0 equaling 1 in maths lectures the whole time to solve equations. it even works on a calculator. try it on the calculator on your computer.

proof that a^0=1

Code:

x^2
-----    =   1
x^2

no dispute there huh?
law of algerbra, same bases being divided, subtract indexs..

x^(2-2) = 1

x^0=1

[na_th_an]

(in this universe at least), but what about 1^0 doesn't work with logarithms?

log(1^0) = 0 * log(1) = 0

and log(1) itself is 0.

True .. I just made a mess... :oops:

I think that this 1^0 = 1^1 is the fact that demonstrates that citpes' rule is false... I just made a mess trying to explain myself

[toonski84]

x^2 - x^2 = x^2 - x^2

x(x-x) = (x+x)(x-x)

x(x-x) (x+x)(x-x)
------- = --------------
(x-x) (x-x)

x = x+x

x = 2x

well, that was the ORIGINAL proof he gave, which i cant find anything wrong with, except it only applies so long as x = 0. tricking factoring can make lots of messy impossible things happen. this is partly why nasa screws up so often.

[Glenn]

point is that he *got* that final result by dividing by x - x (0), a no-no. (It's just a corrollary of the well-known axiom that any and every conclusion follows from a contradiction.)

[toonski84]

that's right, x-x = 0, so he's been dividing by zero. oh well, math wins again.

[relsoft]

heres another one that can only be a 'hole' in algerbra..... i think

Code:

anything to the power 0 is 1, so...

1^1 = 1^0
thus,
bases are the same, so exponents are the same
so 1 = 0

does this mean that all the stupid stuff i learn in maths is totally useless! :lol:

Now this is NOT a hole:
Okay here:

Mul rule:

A^M * A^N=A^(M+N)

Div Rule:

A^M/A^N=A^(M-N)

Now:

25/25=1

5^2=25

5^2/5^2=5^(2-2)=5^0=25/25=1

*Any number divided by itself is=1

On second reading...Glenn beat me to it....

Bah!!! I'm always late...

[Jark]

that 1 can be equal to 2, depending on the set you work in... and how you define the operators.

The "parameter" of such a "corpus" (we say a corps in french, I'm not good at english maths vocabulary. The other notion are "ring" (anneau) and "group"(groupe)) is called the characterics of the "corpus" (caractéristique du corps in french). The characteristic of a corpus can be null or not.

For example, if the set you work in is {0,1}, then 1+1 = 0,1 = -1, etc... You can get strange things following that way.

The set {0} is not a "corpus", but you can try to work on that... and prove that everything is here and now. Or you can take the next flight to a buddhist moutain monastery, it will be faster 8) :lol: :rotfl: :bounce: