User talk:128.84.178.82

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

[edit] What is your problem?

Why did you so quickly revert my additions to the math article? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.84.178.82 (talk • contribs) .

I reverted because it is not true that 1+1 = 1. I did it quickly because I didn't see any reason to wait. -lethe talk + 06:50, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

There is a proof that I cited showing 1+1=1.

The proof is incorrect. -lethe talk + 06:54, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
I seriously doubt that. Could you elaborate? What kind of mathematical background do you have to vouch for this?
Would you like me to point out the error in the proof? I can certainly do that. The proof asserts that since (a+b)(a–b) = 0, therefore, a+b = 0. This step is incorrect because it involves dividing by a–b, which is equal to zero. Division by zero is undefined, and trying to use division by zero leads to well-known contradictions. This "proof" is a well-known example of this phenomenon. In fact, probably no contradictions can be derived from correct mathematics, though this statement is not provable. As for my qualifications in mathematics, I assure you that my qualifications are sufficient on this. -lethe talk + 07:02, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
I am not a fan of predicate logic's so called soundness results. You'll need to do more than simple hand waving
to win me over. The simple fact is that contradictions are not fatal to mathematics. Only dogmatics would insist so.
So let me get this straight. You think that the proof of the soundness of first-order predicate logic is incorrect, and therefore 1+1=1? Nice. -lethe talk + 07:08, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I've reverted your additions 3 times. I cannot revert your edit again without violating wikipedia's rules. I urge you to reconsider this material. It is incorrect. -lethe talk + 07:04, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I am not a fan for edit wars. I do not intend to revert it back again. I will post a notice on the article's discussion page and other people will see that the proof is a valid, credible source and should merit inclusion in the encylopedia. I'm all about wikipedia's consensus building mechanisms.

I appreciate your respect for the wikipedia community rules and norms. It is rare to find that in anonymous users who don't have accounts. Thank you. -lethe talk + 07:26, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Just to say that I support and agree with Lethe's reversions. The so-called "proof" that 1+1=1 is based on an incorrect application of the rules of algebra. If you don't follow the rules then you can "prove" anything. This particular fallacy is not especially interesting or notable, and is already mentioned in Division by zero. Gandalf61 08:57, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Here is a shorter and equally valid proof that 1=2.
0 x 1 = 0 x 2 hence 1 = 2.
Hopefully, this will enlighten 128.84.178.82 about why dividing by zero might fool the eye, but is not a valid step in algebra. Also it would be beneficial to read WP:V and see why an anonymous Geocities posting, signed "Brilliant Mathematician" does not fully qualify for inclusion. The aim of the very well known false proof refered to is to learn about why when one cancels, one has to be sure the factor being cancelled is not zero. Elroch 10:30, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Just FYI, I've had a discussion earlier today with 128.84.178.82 on my talk page about WP:V and connected topics, related to article God. In this article, 128.84.178.82 added a reference to a quote found on the same Geocities site than the one containing the post by a "Brilliant Mathematician". Since both pages were last modified shortly before being cited on Wikipedia, I can't help but wonder if these pages were created just for this purpose. 128.84.178.82 can probably give his opinion about this, but in any case, as you say, it is no big deal since they are non-reputable sources anyway. Cheers, Schutz 11:22, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../1/2/8/User_talk%7E128.84.178.82.html"