anonimnystefy wrote:

Where in the world did you get that?

What exactly? What letters or signs cause in you misunderstanding?

anonimnystefy wrote:

Explain how you got the first equation...

Look this:
h ttp://vladimir938.eto-ya.com/files/2012/12/screenshot-14.12.jpg
point 3.

Last edited by 21122012 (2012-12-16 06:36:08)

seems like:

bob bundy wrote:

hi Fistfiz

If you accept the premise that 1 = 0, then you don't need calculus to get 2 = 1 (just add 1 to each side).

Alternatively suspect that 1 isn't 0 after all.

Bob

cool!

21122012 wrote:

I think  Mathematical analysis says that

Hi round;

Hi;

So 0 = 1? Gave me an idea!

Here is what I did. I had a 1 dollar bill in my pocket so I took it out and placed it in the drawer. But since I now had 0 dollars in my pocket immediately a dollar appeared in there. After all 0 dollars = 1 dollar. So I thought why not try this again. I took the dollar out and immediately it reappeared in my pocket! This worked again and again... Now the question is when should I stop?

bobbym wrote:

Here is what I did. I had a 1 dollar bill in my pocket so I took it out and placed in the drawer. But since I now had 0 dollars in my pocket immediately a dollar appeared in there. After all 0 dollars = 1 dollar. So I thought why not try this again. I took the dollar out and immediately it reappeared in my pocket! This worked again and again... Now the question is when should I stop?

  Stop when you have enough to live comfortably + 1 dollar.  Send that 1 dollar to me.  I have large pockets.

21122012 wrote:

hhmmm.  I've seen this before.

Try

hi Stefy,

You may be right.  My point is that this proof starts with a formula that I call 'integration by parts'.  This formula is obtained from the product rule, so differentiation is involved.

It is commonly assumed that integration is the reverse of differentiation.  I've even met teachers who teach this and books that state it.  It isn't true.

Differentation is a prescriptive process for working out a gradient function, say f(x), from a function, say F(x).

Integration is a summation process.  That's where the integral symbol comes from.  It is a stylised S.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamenta … f_calculus

This makes clear that, if you have obtained F(x) by integration, then working out dF/dx gives f(x) once more.  But starting with F(x) and differentiating cannot be reversed to get F(x) back as there are infinitely many antiderivatives.

So whenever you use the antiderivative to obatin an integral, you must insert a constant of integration and failure to do so may well result in an answer that is wrong by a numeric amount.

I showed this at

http://www.mathisfunforum.com/viewtopic.php?id=18614

I consider the original statement to be correct, save for a numeric amount. 

In my opinion, that's why the proof appears to show an incorrect result, 1 = 0

Bob

hi Fistfiz,

Have you looked at

http://www.mathisfunforum.com/viewtopic.php?id=18422

There's a lot of it, so I don't expect you to look at it all.  Post #1 is worth a look though.

Bob

bob bundy wrote:

So

That looks OK to me.

Sorry bobbym   Your chance to become richer than Bill Gates has been dashed. 

Bob

Give to me the website where this miracle except as here is still written?

anonimnystefy wrote:

Hi Bob


The flawed step is assuming that -Integral[1/x,x]+Integral[1/x,x]=0 instead of Integral [0,x].

You are wrong. Such formula isn't present. Here a problem in other! Here a problem in an error of Calculus!