Posts: 704
Threads: 0
Joined: Dec 2002
That's why it's inaccurate. Anytime you try to draw a conclusion by dividing by zero, it's no big surprise that you get a wrong result. And he *did* state that *his* "b" was zero. His "b" was initially "a - b" and he said that a = b.)
Quote:Well, it is not wrong but it is inaccurate. If b equals zero, you can't divide there. And you are not telling that b <> 0.
ravelling Curmudgeon
(geocities sites require copying and pasting URLs.)
I liked spam better when it was something that came in a can.
Windows should be defenestrated.
Posts: 3,368
Threads: 195
Joined: Jan 2003
the only time that Xa = Ya is zero. So, when he divided by zero, it was wrong. But the whole part was invalidated by dividing by zero before (a-b).
Peace cannot be obtained without war. Why? If there is already peace, it is unnecessary for war. If there is no peace, there is already war."
Visit www.neobasic.net to see rubbish in all its finest.
Posts: 3,343
Threads: 83
Joined: Mar 2003
Yes, we already disproved this.
http://forum.qbasicnews.com/viewtopic.php?t=2153
This formula doesn't work because at the start of the proof you say that a=b. Now from the axioms of maths your proof is wrong because if a=b and 1=2 we should all be inside that balloon that red_marvin was talking about a while ago. If a=b and 2b=b then a and b *have* to equal zero.
Just read the other thread to see all the disproofs.
Posts: 1,439
Threads: 15
Joined: Apr 2003
You can't divide by a and b and all that stuff... you lose answers. and where you have 2b = b, the next step should be b = 0. Like everybody else said...
