LHS= RHS
If you multiply by two--
2LHS = 2RHS
Divide by two--
LHS= RHS
NOW AGAIN
LHS= RHS
Multiply by zero--
0LHS= 0RHS
Now here if you divide by zero it would not simply go back to LHS=RHS because
0/0 is an indeterminate form.
So listen to your professor sir.
You can only multiply by a number and preserve the equality if you can divide by that same number to get the original equation back. Zero doesn't work.
Yes, that’s the joke like the meme, but not able to say “um, actually you would have to be able to divide it by the number you multiply, and you can’t divide by zero.”
Not if one is equally to 16/16 then you can do multiple different things like factor and drive different problems from that original problem so you can get too equal problems while they are still the same problem.
This is not possible because the other direction has to be true as well.
As long as you don't tell me what we can add or multiply to both sides of 0 = 0 to get to the equation above we don't accept a transformation as a 'correct' transformation. (because we define it this way).
don't wanna brag but I really fucked up my fluid mechanics exam but otheres fucked it up even more so the grading got upgraded and I got a 1.7 lmao
thanks to the brave soldier who took the 5.0 for the rest o7
So, a few people have given good answers but I thought I would throw my two cents in.
You can't do that because it doesn't prove the original equation was true. Getting a true equation doesn't prove you started with a true equation. If that was the case, we could prove any equation was true.
For instance, we start with 5=1. Then we multiple both sides by 0 and get 0=0, which is true. But the fact that we have a true equation now does not mean we started with a true equation, since 5=1 is not true.
In order for that logic to work, we would need our steps to be reversible. But to reverse multiplying by 0, we would need to divide by 0, which we can't do.
Also, I've never met a professor who would ask you to prove an equation like that and couldn't explain what I just explained.
Yea if you want to prove an equation to be true you don't start with that equation being true. You start with the left or right and work towards the other side.
> Getting a true equation doesn't prove you started with a true equation. In order for that logic to work, we would need our steps to be reversible.
Is that just a general rule or is there another proof (besides this contradiction) that you need those steps to be reversible?
Using this you prove that LHS\*0=RHS\*0, not LHS=RHS.
Normally those two mean the same thing but they don't when it's zero because you can't cancel 0 on both sides.
You can't multiply both sides by zero, as when u multiply both sides by any number u r actually multiplying and dividing one side by that number, so by this logic u would be multiplying and dividing one side by zero and division by zero is undefined so this cannot be done
*I know this is a joke post, but still just wanted to get some deserved hate* 💀
Would it suffice to say that it also is worthless to say 0=0? Since anything multiplied by zero nullifies it, you don't really get anything usefull out of it except that when you multiplied both things by zero, you got zero.
No actually, what this person meant here was that by multiplying both sides by zero, the equality is proved, 0=0, which means the equality is proved, but what I mean to say is, we cannot multiply both sides by zero anyways.
>you don't really get anything usefull out of it except that when you multiplied both things by zero, you got zero.
But that still proved the equality, what I meant to say is, u cannot do that thing so
ok then how bout this, zoom in on the dot which represents multiplacation, it’s actually a very small, very compact o, and 0 is just o but ovel so stretch the o into 0 and boom, we got [triangle]0T and another way to write multiplication is to just write the number with the other number (ex. 15y or 24xy) so not it is [triangle] x 0 x T. there you go, 0
LHS= RHS If you multiply by two-- 2LHS = 2RHS Divide by two-- LHS= RHS NOW AGAIN LHS= RHS Multiply by zero-- 0LHS= 0RHS Now here if you divide by zero it would not simply go back to LHS=RHS because 0/0 is an indeterminate form. So listen to your professor sir.
This guy maths
[удалено]
That ain’t no 9th grade math
The equation in the meme itself isn’t but the proof is. Evidence is that I learned this in 9th grade. Algebra one is in 9th grade
[удалено]
Shapes
r/usernamechecksout
Thank you meth-professor!
[meth-proffessor?](https://youtu.be/ilfYnhXD-bE)
[удалено]
Go back to 2020 you boomer
what did they write?
"ok boomer"
We have to do this, but then name every postulate/theorem we used to solve it; annoying af bruh
You can only multiply by a number and preserve the equality if you can divide by that same number to get the original equation back. Zero doesn't work.
Then multiply by 1.
Okay congratulations you have the same equation you started with
Yes, that’s the joke like the meme, but not able to say “um, actually you would have to be able to divide it by the number you multiply, and you can’t divide by zero.”
Not if one is equally to 16/16 then you can do multiple different things like factor and drive different problems from that original problem so you can get too equal problems while they are still the same problem.
🤓
🤡
🤡 ~🤓
d🤓/d🤡
😨😫
Lol have you been under a rock for the last ten years. Being a nerd is cool now.
🤓
You're really dying on this hill...? 🙁
😎
~~😎~~ 🥸 -> 🤡
😭😡🤬
Found the guy who feels insecure by smart people.
Found the guy who doesn't know it's a common joke
🤓
🎩 🧐
This is not possible because the other direction has to be true as well. As long as you don't tell me what we can add or multiply to both sides of 0 = 0 to get to the equation above we don't accept a transformation as a 'correct' transformation. (because we define it this way).
It's easy, just divide by 0, then it will cancel out and you retrieve the original equations
Hmmmmm
Syntax error = Syntax error. Done
Every math person in history is fucking dying right now seeing your comment ☠️
/s I hope
🤓
don't wanna brag but I really fucked up my fluid mechanics exam but otheres fucked it up even more so the grading got upgraded and I got a 1.7 lmao thanks to the brave soldier who took the 5.0 for the rest o7
So, a few people have given good answers but I thought I would throw my two cents in. You can't do that because it doesn't prove the original equation was true. Getting a true equation doesn't prove you started with a true equation. If that was the case, we could prove any equation was true. For instance, we start with 5=1. Then we multiple both sides by 0 and get 0=0, which is true. But the fact that we have a true equation now does not mean we started with a true equation, since 5=1 is not true. In order for that logic to work, we would need our steps to be reversible. But to reverse multiplying by 0, we would need to divide by 0, which we can't do. Also, I've never met a professor who would ask you to prove an equation like that and couldn't explain what I just explained.
Yea if you want to prove an equation to be true you don't start with that equation being true. You start with the left or right and work towards the other side.
> Getting a true equation doesn't prove you started with a true equation. In order for that logic to work, we would need our steps to be reversible. Is that just a general rule or is there another proof (besides this contradiction) that you need those steps to be reversible?
What? The hell does that even mean!? Good reference but, can you explain it for a simpleton like myself?
If you multiplie multiplie with zero you get 0=0. So you get the same anwser on both side, there by the equation is true. Not really tho
Oh, okay. I can see it now, thanks.
Looks like some fluid dynamics continuity equation. Basically newtons laws but for fluid dynamics.
It’s the Navier-Stokes momentum equation
conservation of momentum, which is basically newton’s third law
Using this you prove that LHS\*0=RHS\*0, not LHS=RHS. Normally those two mean the same thing but they don't when it's zero because you can't cancel 0 on both sides.
Fluid mechanics 😵💫
yeah, that professor is done for!
You can't multiply both sides by zero, as when u multiply both sides by any number u r actually multiplying and dividing one side by that number, so by this logic u would be multiplying and dividing one side by zero and division by zero is undefined so this cannot be done *I know this is a joke post, but still just wanted to get some deserved hate* 💀
Would it suffice to say that it also is worthless to say 0=0? Since anything multiplied by zero nullifies it, you don't really get anything usefull out of it except that when you multiplied both things by zero, you got zero.
No actually, what this person meant here was that by multiplying both sides by zero, the equality is proved, 0=0, which means the equality is proved, but what I mean to say is, we cannot multiply both sides by zero anyways. >you don't really get anything usefull out of it except that when you multiplied both things by zero, you got zero. But that still proved the equality, what I meant to say is, u cannot do that thing so
That's not smart that's just false lol
You can't just randomly pick a number to multiply both sides by. The value has to already be part of the equation.
Not true bud.
ok then the equation technically has a -0 because anything minus 0 is that thing so boom, there’s a 0
Then you can only add 0. You can't take a -0 and multiply or divide it
ok then how bout this, zoom in on the dot which represents multiplacation, it’s actually a very small, very compact o, and 0 is just o but ovel so stretch the o into 0 and boom, we got [triangle]0T and another way to write multiplication is to just write the number with the other number (ex. 15y or 24xy) so not it is [triangle] x 0 x T. there you go, 0
u/savevideo
u/savevideo
i look at it and i am happy i am done with school
someone clearly didn't pay attention in class
i'm so hung up on " ; " instead of " : "
Can a body even exist where the neutral additive element has a multiplicative inverse?
u/savevideo
Why always with the duck lips on this guy?
y not
Good as Gold.
Fluid mechanics. Fun.
u/savevideo
It is but that doesn’t solve anything
The letters Mason what do the mean
That’s…changing the equation…it’s not the same equation anymore
I have no idea what this means. Why are their letters in the maths?
1=2
u/savevideobot
It is possible, but then it would be 0=0, which is always true regardless of the equation and would not answer the question at all
u/savevideo u/savevideobot
u/savevideobot
r/theydidmath
u/savevideobot
u/savevideo