0/10

bump

Math is the reason you have computers, cell phones, cars, pretty much anything you take for granted that makes your life easier.

>>740628


>Using imaginary numbers pretty much breaks simple math rules.

>>740647
Math shouldn't be broken

The fact that it is proves that it is bullshit

>>740647
Uh no it doesn't.
These operations didn't take into account ±
sqrt(1) = ± 1

>>740628
square roots don't work like that over the complex numbers

First off, you could have made this a fuck ton simpler by multiplying by i on step 4. That would give you -1=1. Add one to each side, and get 2=0. Divide by two. 1=0. Thus 2=0.


As to what is wrong with your "proof", the law √xy = √x√y is in general not true, ie, doesn't work for negative numbers. Learn a little bit of complex analysis, look up logarithms and branch cuts.

>>740670

Sorry 2=1 would follow

>>740628
i1=i1
−i1=i1

Just because you don't understand something doesn't mean it's broken.

>>740695
*−i1=i1

I got a little copy/paste-happy there.

Root in the denominator?

>>740670
Umm... scuse me, but √xy = √x√y. The principal square root is a group homomorphism under multiplication.

>Using things defined for Reals with Imaginary numbers the same way
HERP DERP YOU SO SMURT OP, NEXT THING YOU'LL PROVE 1=2 BY DIVIDING BY ZERO

>>740725
>thinking you can't use them the same way in this case

Hint: this exact same fallacy can be made strictly in the reals.

>>740719
uh huh. So according to you, the following proof is completely valid:

-1=i * i = √(-1) * √(-1) = √(-1 * -1) = √1 = 1

Drop the algebra, pick up the complex analysis.

>>740757
√1 = -1, you jackass.

It's the same thing as in the reals. You can make the same fallacy in them too.

2=√4=-2

The complex numbers behave by the same rules as the real numbers. It's just that fallacies using them can be more obscure. All of these fallacies arise from the fact that the square root is not a function. Usually when dealing with it, the desired result is the principal square root, but that is not always the case. Sometimes it is the negation of the principal square root. With some diligence of determining which is needed with both real numbers and complex numbers can be treated in the exact same manner under the square root.

so is this the formula to make maganet