/sci/ - Science & Math » Thread #13315400

72KiB, 900x601, E4g_QR4WQAMRIZS.jpg

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO

Anonymous Wed 23 Jun 18:22:27 2021 No.13315400 View Reply Original Report

Quoted By: >>13315447 >>13315458 >>13315478 >>13315490 >>13315822

Prove him wrong.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO liebeherz.jpg, 69KiB, 600x600

Anonymous Wed 23 Jun 2021 18:33:02 No.13315447 Report

Quoted By:

>>13315400
$1+1=2$ (well known result, see e.g. Russel p. 427)

$1+1=3 \implies 2=3$ by transitivity

$2=3 \implies 0=1$ arithmetically

$1+1=3 \implies 0=1$ , a.k.a. $\neg(1+1=3)$

where $\neg A$ denotes $A\implies \bot$ and $\bot$ denotes $0=1$

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 23 Jun 2021 18:36:21 No.13315458 Report

Quoted By:

>>13315400
Three minus one is:

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 23 Jun 2021 18:39:31 No.13315478 Report

Quoted By:

>>13315400
That's not DJ Khaled.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 23 Jun 2021 18:42:06 No.13315490 Report

Quoted By:

>>13315400
If you change three to mean 2, then yes it is correct. However, this game of semantics is meaningless and irrelevant.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 23 Jun 2021 18:46:13 No.13315515 Report

Quoted By:

Clearly he has't read principia mathematica.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 23 Jun 2021 20:08:42 No.13315822 Report

Quoted By:

>>13315400
prove him right:

Let + be an operator with the following properties: a + b = a * (3 * b) with
(* being multiplication of elements of R)
and ( 3 is element of R)
therefore
1+1 = 1 * (3 * 1)
1+1=3

Capcode	All Only User Posts Only Moderator Posts Only Admin Posts Only Developer Posts
Show Posts	All Only With Images Only Without Images
Deleted Posts	All Only Deleted Posts Only Non-Deleted Posts
Ghost Posts	All Only Ghost Posts Only Non-Ghost Posts
Post Type	All Only Sticky Threads Only Opening Posts Only Reply Posts
Results	All Grouped By Threads
Order	Latest Posts First Oldest Posts First

Your latest searches