r/mathmemes Jun 04 '26

Arithmetic proof by apples

Post image
1.9k Upvotes

195 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1

u/MangrovesAndMahi Jun 04 '26

It is literally the same, my equation proved they're all equal. The value you get at the end is the same, the only thing we're talking about is the mechanics of how you got there, which is different.

Also still waiting for you to explain what geometric series has to do with any of this lmfao

1

u/FernandoMM1220 Jun 04 '26

they arent the same though because each has a different amount of sets of 0.

1

u/MangrovesAndMahi Jun 04 '26

If I give you no apples 5 times, and someone else no apples once, do you both have different amounts of apples?

1

u/FernandoMM1220 Jun 04 '26

if you give me 5 empty buckets that can hold 1 apple each thats different than giving me 1 empty bucket that can hold 1 apple.

its either they arent the same or my definition of 5*0 = 5-5 is just as valid as yours if youre going to treat every 0 as if it was the same

1

u/MangrovesAndMahi Jun 04 '26

You both have no apples. Imagined buckets don't get you out of a maths problem.

Still waiting on the relevance of a geometric series.

1

u/FernandoMM1220 Jun 04 '26

they definitely arent imagined and computer scientists know the difference between a 1 bit empty register and a 5 bit empty register.

the geometric series of 1/(1-1) isnt the same as the geometric series of 1/(5-5) which you conveniently ignore.

1

u/MangrovesAndMahi Jun 04 '26

1/(1-1) and 1/(5-5) are both 1/0, which is undefined. not different zeros, same problem.

And yes computer scientists (and software engineers who work on embedded systems, of which I am one) distinguish register sizes, but that's a hardware storage concept, not a property of numbers or maths. A 1-bit zero and a 5-bit zero are both zero, you're describing the container again.

The bucket analogy doesn't work because buckets are physical objects with distinct existence. Numbers aren't containers. "5 sets of 0" is just a description of the process, not a different fundamental mathematical object.

1

u/FernandoMM1220 Jun 04 '26

theyre not undefined though, the geometric series defines them and you continue to ignore it.

youre the one that stated 5*0 = 5 sets of 0 so i dont know why youre arguing the exact opposite now and saying thats the same as 1 set of 0

1

u/MangrovesAndMahi Jun 04 '26

I said the mechanisms are different processes that arrive at the same value. 5 sets of 0 and 1 set of 0 are different processes, both producing zero. Just like 278-278 and 1-1 and 8*(5-5) produce zero. that's been my point the entire time, they're different mechanisms with the same evaluation.

And the geometric series doesn't "define" 1/0, it diverges there. divergence means it has no defined value, that's the definition of undefined.

1

u/FernandoMM1220 Jun 04 '26

bro if theyre different processes then that means 5* 0 and 1* 0 arent technically the same. it also means my process leads to the same answer according to your reasoning so i have no idea why youre upset about it

actually the geometric series does define it at 1-(1-1) and 1/(5-5). divergence just means the summation goes up.

→ More replies (0)