lofty900:
mathematically correct, scientifically wrong

He is not corrrect because he has violated so many mathematical rules.

decountof:
0/0 is not equal to 1
Because in logical terms it becomes a fallacy,
If you have nothing and if you divide that nothing among none,then each one gets 1,
Hence the very definition of division fails here.

even the bible will prove you wrong..

lets take for example,as god created the earth...its says its void...void+void=2 void...

he is not wrong...

emekachimek:


But his fractionalization was wrong: 100-100 is never 10^2 - 10^2 because -100 is NOT equal to -10^2. -10^2 = +100.

u re very correct

Mathematically wrong

wonda26:

10^2 - 10^2 = (10 + 10)(10-10) is very correct.

In mathematics, it is called 'Difference of two squares'


If you doubt, try simplifying the right hand side of the equation

How can you make -10*10 = -10^2

-10*10 = -100.
-10^2 = -10*-10 = +100

If you knew Maths, you'd know the 2nd to 3rd step are miles apart and not mathematically possible.

You all act like you know sh*t

It's a shame so many agree that he's right

Square rooting negative integers is a very complex procedure meant for mathematics majors

emekachimek:


What he did was: (100-100)=10^2 - 10^2 which is wrong. -100 does not have a square root but u can have square of -100 which is equal to +10000. ONLY POSITIVE NUMBERS HAVE SQUARE ROOTS BUT ALL NUMBERS HAVE SQUARES. He failed it when he factorized -100 as 10^2: It is wrong.

So what if I do:
100 - 100 = (+100) - (+100) = (10^2) - (10^2) = 10^2 - 10^2?

Like someone said, mathematics is an abstract science. A lot of things can be proven correctly, using mathematical equations. Just like Op got 2 from his solution, you can rearrange the numerator and denominator and get 0.5. Also, if you use the same method of expansion for the numerator and denominator, you will get 1.

well,am not a mathematician but an engineering student and have this to say...

he was proving that 0/0=2 and assume that (10-10)/(10-10) which is basically 0/0=1 when divided........

cupid1:
He started failing it from the point where he struck out 10 and -10,the 10 on top is supposed to equate to -1 when divided by -1 which when put into the equation, will give you 19/10.
And secondly, you cant stricke out numbers that way. They are in brackets in their own different equations i.e an equation in an equation.
So my point is, the person who provided this so called 'proof' is a dullard

. He strikes d bracket not numbers..go tru again

ILIDEFI:


You are busy insulting, when u obviously didn't understand the calculation done up there. The op didn't strike out 10/-10,rather he struck out (10-10)/(10-10). Check it out again, and follow the calculation carefully. Maybe you're the one whose maths result should be questioned.

mumu, look again...(10-10) is on top, and (0-10) is below. And he used the -10 below to strike out the positive 10 above which mathematically should leave -1 in the place of the positive 10 above, then (-1-10) is equal to -11 which should then be multiplied with each of the remaining numbers in the above equation

Hitter:


Lie!!.. Maths rule weren't followed .. Anything divided by 0 is straight indefinite! (∞)

lol you re not a mathematician at all. If n is and element of R and R a real number , then 0/n = 0 , n/0=infinity, 0/0= indeterminate

I came to read the comments. Mathematics; causing confusion since the creation of the world

what a wrong proving............think wella next time

ILIDEFI:


You are busy insulting, when u obviously didn't understand the calculation done up there. The op didn't strike out 10/-10,rather he struck out (10-10)/(10-10). Check it out again, and follow the calculation carefully. Maybe you're the one whose maths result should be questioned.

mumu, look again...(10-10) is on top, and (0-10) is below. And he used the -10 below to strike out the positive 10 above which mathematically should leave -1 in the place of the positive 10 above, then (-1-10) is equal to -11 which should then be multiplied with each of the remaining numbers in the above equation

soe:
he didnt do -10/10
What he did was (10-10) divided by (10-10)

Look again...(10-10) is on top, and (0-10) is below. And he used the -10 below to strike out the positive 10 above which mathematically should leave -1 in the place of the positive 10 above, then (-1-10) is equal to -11 which should then be multiplied with each of the remaining numbers in the above equation

almighty BODMAS wrongs ur proof

Where did he come about 10,maths is not magic,does it work with other numbers as well,0/0 itself is an equatn with an answer itself.

The proof is wrong. How come zero (0) equals 100? What are the conditionalities? What is the theorem used? Was there a proposition?
Whoever did this should not think he is a genius, it is all mathematical fallacy. I am sad that a mathematics student did this. The spirits of Fourier, Pascal and et al who did great work to mathematics are vexed with this proof.

ekolina:
. He strikes d bracket not numbers..go tru again

Jeeze, of all the people countering my post, your own idea is the most ridiculous. How can he strike out only the brackets ? Who thought you that kinda math ?

TONYE001:
Nice..

The mathematical principles applied were TOTALLY correct.

I would not fail this student if I were the teacher...

Every step this guy has taken to prove his hypothesis is completely correct.

jonaji:
Very Creative I tell you.... So students in the house.... You can use it to challenge ur teachers

lol, it is wrong from point 1 haba

cupid1:
mumu, look again...(10-10) is on top, and (0-10) is below. And he used the -10 below to strike out the positive 10 above which mathematically should leave -1 in the place of the positive 10 above, then (-1-10) is equal to -11 which should then be multiplied with each of the remaining numbers in the above equation

You are obviously the MUMU! Blind one for that matter. Look at that picture again and tell me if it's (0-10) that is there in the denominator or (10-10). Well, I blame the nokia torch you're using to browse.
Secondly, if you had any knowledge of mathematics, you would never have opened your mouth to say that it's (0-10) that is in the denominator. Obviously, you didn't understand the calculation one bit.
Taa gbafuo!

mathematics is nasty....

but he is right.....

cupid1:
Look again...(10-10) is on top, and (0-10) is below. And he used the -10 below to strike out the positive 10 above which mathematically should leave -1 in the place of the positive 10 above, then (-1-10) is equal to -11 which should then be multiplied with each of the remaining numbers in the above equation

seth...stop being stubborn.

Check again.

There is nothing like (0-10)
Maybe you should go on your laptop...it is (10-10) at the denominator.

Aside that...what you are saying is not done in mathematics.
You cannot say
(10-10)/(-10) = 10 - (10/-10)
= 10+1
= 11
Accept you are wrong

cupid1:
Look again...(10-10) is on top, and (0-10) is below. And he used the -10 below to strike out the positive 10 above which mathematically should leave -1 in the place of the positive 10 above, then (-1-10) is equal to -11 which should then be multiplied with each of the remaining numbers in the above equation

Bro you don't have a point.

This dude calling himself genius is a joke seems he didn't do PEMDAS in elementary school, doing division before resolving parentheses he needs a math tutor...people saying he's correct, na wa for una oh.

10-10 is equal to zero already. No need to move forward. Go and read math well please.

he made the fatal error by cancelling/dividing (10-10)/(10-10)

You see in mathematics division by 0 is undefined.

so (10-10)/(10-10) = 0/0 = undefined which is the right thing to do

but he did (10-10)/(10-10) = 1 which is the wrong thing to do

OP made a basic error

100-100 is equal to zero already. No need to move forward. Go and read math well please.

freddaboh:
It is called "Thinking outside the box".Mathematics is an important tool for engineering designs. An innovator can use simple mathematically models to design anything he or she wants and one mathematical model can solve many design problems.

His solution is scientifically and mathematically correct.

This is the best comment so far. Thumbs up bro

adewaletb3:
So_fucking wrong. Why would you prove like a goat

i doubt if u sabi maths for school, he's right afterall

people like me will just come,look and smile like this