Proof 0=1

@B11portezaallanklark said in #31:

#30 They, Mods just don't chatban people immeadetly, they squint lemon and alittle bazil leaves and voila! They cut onions in they're eyes and travel to Singapore and meet Alizera! (JK)

ya,i know of course
its a joke only

@ChessMathNerd
Line 2 says " or (1 - 1) + (1 - 1) + (1 - 1)...."
line 3 says "or 1 + (-1 + 1) + (-1 + 1)...."

Here is the logical flaw...
what is written line 2 (0 + 0 + 0)
What is written line 3 (1 + 0 +0)

(0+ 0 +0 )<> (1 + 0 +0)

Your argument is that the " ... " means infinity, BUT the mathematical problem shown is not dealing with infinity, but a finite subset. If you move one step forward, but don't finish the series, then you have stopped being infinite, if you argue that the number is still infinite, then the series must continue , you just aren't showing the number that is still in the series, therefore not representing all values specified in the second line. Line 2 has six ones, line three has five, therefore they cannot be the same number. A + A + A + A+ A + A = A + A + A + A + A ONLY if A = 0

It's very confusing #1

after seeing the math done by #1:
https://imgur.com/DDn3Z57

@tixem75 if i have 0 brain cells does that mean i have 1 brain cell?

@AYUBALLENA said in #29:

First of all, infinite is not a number
Second: Period numbers, like π
π is an irrational number, since their decimals are infinite, and as you know, adding infinite things leads to infinite, but π starts off with 3 which is not infinite, also that you would be adding lesser numbers each time.
Third: infinite + 1 > infinite, as said, infinite is not a number, is a word, so it’s like saying potato + 1 > potato
“potato” has a definition, and adding “1” just doesn’t make sense, the potato is still a plant, therefore still a potato
“infinite” has a definition too, and adding “1” doesn’t make sense either, infinite still has no end, therefore still infinite

You said it very well. Infinity is a concept. Numbers and concepts are oil and vinegar. The way hes' trying to do it is not only wrong to assume that the 1 disappears when it's added but that it could be added in the first place. It' would be like saying 1+prime number= prime number

@Katzenschinken said in #18:

Here's an easy one for you:

Three men are arriving at a hotel late at night. They need a place to sleep and the receptionist tells them he only has one small room left and it is 30 Dollars (it is a really cheap hotel as you can see). The men agree and he shows them the room. Everyone of the three men gives him a 10 Dollar bill.

When the receptionist arrives back at his desk he is informed that the room is only 25 Dollars. He goes back to the men and gives each one of them 1 Dollar. The remaining 2 Dollars he pockets for himself.

So each of the three men has now payed 9 Dollars. Multiplied by three this makes 27 Dollars. 2 Dollars went into the pocket of the dishonest receptionist, giving 29 Dollars. Now the question: Where is the last Dollar?

25+27...= 92?

This is how 0 = 1
The king is considered to have zero point value in chess but it is a (one) piece.
so 0 = 1