Make-a-'dox

[Keeper]

welcome! Who here would Like to create there own paradox? make it original!

[FreshBrains]

The first one I ever saw: The following statement is true: The previous statement is false.

[Man of Shred]

The first one I ever saw: The following statement is true: The previous statement is false. [/b] This statement is false!

[Merlock]

You are what you eat.

[Keeper]

a=b a+a=a+b 2a=a+b 2a-2b=a+b-2b 2(a-b)=a+b-2b 2(a-b)=a-b 2=1

[Neruo]

... 2(a-b)=a+b-2b 2(a-b)=a-b 2=1 [/b] That all doesn't work out becouse a minus b is zero. 2(a-b) = 0 = a-b = 0.

[arby]

That all doesn't work out becouse a minus b is zero. 2(a-b) = 0 = a-b = 0. [/b] 0 = 0 whats the problem? =P

[Neruo]

0 = 0 whats the problem? =P [/b] It isn't a paradox Kaniaz allso explained it correctly. Most of those 2=1 paradoxes work by an error that occurs if you use a zero. A x 3216 = A x 0.332, just aslong as A is zero, it doens't mean 3216 = 0.332

[Kaniaz]

a = b 1 = 1 a+a = a+b 1+1 = 1+1 2a = a+b (2*1) = 1+1 2a - 2b = a + b - 2b (2*1) - (2*1) = 1 + 1 - (1*2) 2(a-b) = a + b - 2b (2*1) - (2*1) = 1 + 1 - (2*1) 2(a-b) = a - b (2*1) - (2*1) = 1 - 1 2 - 2 = 1 - 1 0 = 0 Sorry, it works out. You just twisted the equation around a lot and somehow confused yourself. a = b at the start so for all intents and purposes I think we could've just got rid of b and used a. Any number subtracted by itself is zero (feel free to prove me wrong somehow). I wonder if there are actually any mathematical paradoxes? I'd like to say no, but I am not exactly a genius mathematician. Would be interesting to see.

[badassbob]

...uh...what?

[arby]

ah, I thought he had posted it right.... here it is.. a=b multiply by b ab = b^2 subtract a^2 (thats a-squared) ab-a^2 = b^2 - a^2 factor a(b-a) = (a+b)(a-b) the (a-b) on both sides cancel each other out. a = (a+b) 1 = 2 there =P

[TweaK]

a=b ab = b² |-a²| ab-a² = b² - a² a(b-a) = (a+b)(a-b) a = (a+b) 1 = 2 [/b] Fixed. Originally posted by Kaniaz Go back in time and do whatever it was you wanted to do, then you won&#39;t have a reason for having gone in the first place. You really don&#39;t need to get grandma caught all up in this. Exactly. Even without killing a parent/grandparent/great great great [...] grandparent, you could just go back in time to do [whatever], but seeing the event is prevented/done, you had no reason to have created the time machine in the first place in the present; In that case, there would be no reason for you to have made the time machine. It&#39;s an evil loop/paradox/vicious cycle/something. 0.9999999999<strike>9</strike> = 1[/b] I [s]&#39;d the last 9. Usually you put a slash through it to show it repeats, but I can&#39;t exactly put a slash through another character on the computer, can I? Either way, 0.99 = 1 because of rounding. Duh?

[Demerzel]

The (a-b) on which two sides? (b-a) is NOT EQUAL TO (a-b)

[Keeper]

The (a-b) on which two sides? (b-a) is NOT EQUAL TO (a-b) [/b] actually it is if a=b oh, and dont blame me ... I didn't come up with it.

[arby]

bah i think i did it wrong too. oh well. Yeh, its all in the zero =P now can you figure out whats wrong with the 0.99999999999 repeated = 1? =P

[lord_cliff_turtle]

now can you figure out whats wrong with the 0.99999999999 repeated = 1? =P [/b] There's nothing wrong, that statement is true. (lets just hope I can get the fractions to work) You start with 1 and divide it by 3 yes? You get 1/3 or 3/9 or 0.333333333 recurring What is 3/9 divided by 3? 1/9. ( because 1/9 multiplied by 3 = 3/9 ) What is 0.333333333 divided by 3? 0.111111111 recurring yes? so: 1/9 = 0.111111111 recurring. Double this and get: 2/9 = 0.222222222 recurring. 3/9 = 0.333333333 recurring 4/9 = 0.444444444 recurring 5/9 = 0.555555555 recurring 6/9 = 0.666666666 recurring (2/3) .... 9/9 = 0.999999999 recurring Any fraction where numerator = denominator is 1. 9/9 = 1 = 0.999999999 recurring (but only if it carries on forever, if it ends then its just really really close to 1) No need to round, fractions and absolute values proves it. Hurrah. Oh and the other series of equations, when you divide by (a-b), you are dividing by (a-a), you are dividing by zero. Dividing by zero does really funny things, like produce infinity and ruin perfectly good graphs (like y=1/x, y=tan x and so on) Edit: MSG already spotted the divide by zero buisness. Sorry

[Merlock]

You start with 1 and divide it by 3 yes? You get 1/3 or 3/9 or 0.333333333 recurring [/b] No. you. don't. 0.3~ is a precise number. We're talking about 0.9~ here, not about 1/3+2/3. One third is a fraction of one whole. Whilst fractions like 0.3~ are just that - themselves. When writing 0.3~ we're not talking about one third (1/3) of one whole, we're talking about zero-point-three-recurring - that precise number. That is why the above explanation isn't valid. You're trying to prove what a precise given number is (0.9~ in this case) by turning it into a fraction of one whole. That has no place. 0.9~ is a fraction with an endless period that will never reach 1. It just is by definition of what an endless period is and thus it isn't 1 now and it will never be 1, so to speak. 1/3+1/3+1/3 does equal to 1 0.9~ is a different value than 1 - an eternal value that is never a precise one without rounding but nonetheless.

[lord_cliff_turtle]

Awwwww, and I thought I was making sense. I blame my maths teacher who explained it to me in the first place 3 years ago. I understood it then and thought that 0.3 recurring was the same as 1/3. Can I try another explanation by you (also from the same teacher)? say x=0.1 recurring then 10x = 1.1 recurring if you do 10x - x, you get 9x, which due to recurring numbers after the decimal point cancelling, = 1 (the .1111111.... cancels with the never ending 1.1111111.... of the other due to the nature of recurrence) thus, 9x = 1 since x=0.1 recurring, 9*0.1 recurring = 0.9 recurring. these two statements of "9x=1" and "9x=0.9 recurring" appear to prove the equivelance(spelt right?) of the two numbers Not sure how we can decide which is right though, need to ask for second and third opinions. I shall ask my Advanced Higher Maths teacher tomorrow. Sorry if I irritated you Merlock

[Merlock]

say x=0.1 recurring then 10x = 1.1 recurring if you do 10x - x, you get 9x, which due to recurring numbers after the decimal point cancelling, = 1 (the .1111111.... cancels with the never ending 1.1111111.... of the other due to the nature of recurrence) thus, 9x = 1 since x=0.1 recurring, 9*0.1 recurring = 0.9 recurring. these two statements of "9x=1" and "9x=0.9 recurring" appear to prove the equivelance(spelt right?) of the two numbers [/b] Sorry, your third step is faulty. Nothing cancels anything out. 10x - x with x=0.111~ would be just that - 9.111~ Bringing a variable into this is needless since the value is a given. Whatever that result above is, is merely a misconception due to the use of that "x". Since x is a given of 0.111~ then 9x is just 9 x 0.111~, which is 9.111~. No need to get confusing with other manipulations. But aside from that, this isn't the point. The point is that 0.999~ doesn't need to be proven to be equal to 1. It just isn't by definition of an infinite period. It will never reach 1 and will always remain less than 1, being a fraction with a neverending period. There's just no meaning behind this entire deal concerning 0.999~. Sorry if I irritated you Merlock [/b] Hahah, no, I don't get irritated often. It's MSG and Kaniaz that were trying to prove an irritating point in IRC...but that's best left alone. o.o

[MSG]

19 / 0 DIVIDE BY ZERO OH SHI-

[Keeper]

19 / 0 DIVIDE BY ZERO OH SHI- [/b]

[arby]

*world explodes*

[MSG]

Go back in time and kill your grandma Then you'll never be born, then never would be able to kill your grandma Then she would live then you would be born then kill her But you would never be born and I could go on for hours

[Kaniaz]

Go back in time and do whatever it was you wanted to do, then you won't have a reason for having gone in the first place. You really don't need to get grandma caught all up in this.

[arby]

This sentence does not make sense.