and programming language
oh nvm i found it
they say “x is a real number which is both positive and negative”
and then define positive as “greater than or equal to zero”
of course if something is equal to zero under that definition it woudl be positive (aka zero)
this proof doesn’t “prove” anything. the claim that positive if anything EQUAL TO or greater than 0 is not commonly accepted, and the proof itself is very circular since it relies on its own definition of positive and negative
i couldve been a mathematician in the 1960s
1 Like
you can’t sign wikipedia as a source in school and you’re citing it to me
2 Likes
⁰
as opposed to your source being the post of a guy who answered a question on a forum
I’m pretty sure mathemticans would be hounding Wikipedia about this sort of stuff so I’m inclined to think the fact that the page isn’t scorched earth means it’s correct
see this 0 is negative but only bc its kind of not very confident in itself. be bold. be proud. youre your own person 0. its time to make that clear
1 Like
a mathematician on a forum compared to a guy we don’t even know
2 Likes
impressively theres not one but two fallacies in that proof
not only that but it proves that if a real number that is both positive and negative exists, it is 0
which is not the same thing
2 Likes
see atlas didnt link wikipedia, they linked some other website with 1 (one) source from 1965
3 Likes
nah tutuu linked wiki
1 Like
im just messing around with the fol chat box im bored
like I’m inclined to believe this page is just accurate
because literally every mathematician on the planet would be hitting Wikipedia with a crow bar if it wasn’t
2 Likes
i was talkin about atlas, who linked “proofwiki”
2 Likes
i thought that was what u were referring to, i didn’t realize tutuu also linked wikipedia
1 Like
i am a forum mafia player and on this forum i declare that social reads are not real
1 Like
im dying on this hill and im leaving
3 Likes