>>OP's image = calculus

GOD....DAMN... TROLLS...

There's a missing step in that equation, where it divides by zero. It's just a trick.

Lern2math.

mathbloxxxing

here's the next step up for you kids
from Euler's identity:
e^(i*pi)= -1
(e^(i*pi))^2= (-1)^2
e^(2i*pi)= 1
ln(e^(2i*pi))= ln(1)
2i*pi=0
so either 2=0, i=0, or pi=0
amirite?

>>4327622

correction: ln is multi-valued

>>4327667
x-7 = 19 + x

x = 26 + x

0 = 26

>>4327667
Anime does maths.png

>>4327599

You don't even have to divide by 0, it just becomes 0 = 0.

x-7=19+x

Eliminate 7 and add 7 onto 19 to make 26. So x=26. It's simple if you know basic algebra.

>>4327506
I laugh at you dumb Americans calling that calculus.
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.

>>4327772
Agreed. That's basic algebra.

calc blew my mind because we were always taught in high school that you cant divide by 0.

Then I got to L'Hospital's Rule and found out that 1/0 = infinity.

I shat bricks.

>>4327772
This poster is American. I can tell because of the pixels and I have seen many Americans in my time.

>>4327667

x - 7 = x + 19

x = 26 + x (disregard improbability for the moment)

Substitute on left side of the equation.

(26 + x) - 7 = x + 19

x + 19 = x + 19

0 = 0

>>4327506
http://www21.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=(a%2Bb)(a-b)%3Db(a-b)

>>4327667
http://www32.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=x-7%3D19%2Bx

>>4327622
No, 2pi = 0. l2radian

>>4327809
What the fuck? You didn't do anything useful there at all, you may as well just have written x - x = 0.

>>4327831

Correction, sin(x)=sin(x+2kpi), but x =/= x+2kpi

lrn2parametricequations

>>4327831
trollface.jpg

>>4327796
It's obvious that 1/0 = infinity
take the y = 1/x graph for example
1/0 is an asymptote and therefore +/- infinity

>>4327859
How is that parametric?

>>4327862

but growing up my simple mind did not understand that.

it's like my mind had a total mathematical epiphany when i saw that.

>>4327831
10/10
i wat'd for a second there

>>4327862
No, it isn't. 1/0 = infinity leads to contradictions such as the bold hypothesis where you can 'prove' that any number equals any other number. So 1/0 = infinity can't be true.

>>4327796
x/0 is undefined; it MAY be infinity, but it doesn't always need to be.

>>4327876
I've never heard of l'hopital's rule or whatever the fuck that is, doing A-Level maths (Year 13 in britfag land, also exam tomorrow, done nothing for it, o shi-), and i've realised for years that 1/0 = infinity

am i a genius or are you slow :|

>>4327878
Yeah :D
A friend and myself discovered this a little while ago, when a teacher said think in radians we were like that too :P

>>4327897
L'Hopital's rule states that the value of a function at a certain point is equal to the limit of the function approaching that point from both directions, where both directions equal the same value.

OP is a troll. This post was just on /v/ and a bunch of people there believed it.

>>4327897
I believe you are not a genius because 1/0 =! infinity.

>>4327897
See: >>4327880
I have that exam tomorrow too, Core 4 right? Gonna be easy peasy :D

>>4327943
>/v/
>idiots
yeah sounds about right. Honestly, this math meme bullshit like OP's pic is really annoying. Not only because it's wrong and not calculus, but because someone seriously made it and thought they were correct and thought it was calculus.

>>4327667

Hmmmmmmasdmfmasdmmmmmm

>>4327622
but ln(e^(2i*pi))=/=2i*pi because the complex exponential is not a bijection (you cant define the ln function on the whole complex plane). Actually the complex ln is so that ln(e^(2i*pi))=0 and thus... everything went better than expected.

>>4328015
Can you explain that in more detail please?

>>4327959
Yeah, urrite.

Only need 38% for an A, but I've still done literally fuck all for it, now would probably be a good time to start doing something

>>4328052
well it's basic complex analysis. ln have to be holomorphic but if you define it over the unit circle, the integral over the cicle is not equal to 0 (as an holomorphic function, it should be), mainly because of ln(e^(2i*pi)) being not equal to ln(1). So you can only define ln on C\(a), (a) being a "path" from 0 to infinite. As a consequency, ln(exp(x))=x only if the complex part of x is between 0 and 2i*pi.

>>4328210
It's pretty basic stuff to be honest. I did the paper (not including comprehension bit) in half an hour and got 70/72. Not bad eh :D

>>4328246
Well, compared to the ridiculously easy bullshit in all the other modules preceding it, it's reasonably challenging

That said, if I didn't fall asleep and actually did work, I'm sure I could ace it!

>>4328233
I'm an A2-level student, complex analysis is way above me. I guess I'll just have to wait to find out what you mean (I'm hoping to do maths at uni).

i don't know how is works in your country, i'm studying in france and i saw this after 3 years of maths at university (i was 21). now im gonna be a math teacher and complex analysis is one of the worse things i've experienced so far.
the ln(exp(2ipi)) thing is very challenging btw, because everybody can spot the problem but you have to be pretty much experienced in maths to understand why it's false

>>4328298

Above you? Nothing is above you with the existence of the internet.

>>4328466
Already tried looking it up, didn't understand it :P

integrate a 1/x curve with x>1
now find the volume of revolution

the resulting horn has infinite length,
but finite volume

wat

>>4328509

That does not mean you should admit it, especially on /r9k/ of all places. What you should do is reword the wikipedia article and post it.

>>4328528
I see no problem here, except the stupid x>1 condition : since 1/x is symetrical relatively to the y=x curve, it's easy to see that you could even interate from 0 to infinite and still get a finite volume for the resulting trumpet ;D

>>4328528
No it doesn't... the volume works out to be -pi + pi/0. If it's got an infinite area, it's going to have an infinite volume.

>>4328627
true
but the volume is finite with 1/x^2 instead of 1/x, with still an infinite lenght

>>4328702
How? You still get something over x, so when you put in 0 it still won't work.

>>4328768
Riemann proved a few centuries ago that 1/x^2 has a finite integral, i'm not going to do it again for you.
learn2wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Improper_integral