Prove me wrong

...

So this is the true power of autism

The first line is wrong. The rest is okay.

>OP never made that claim
Yes he did
>muh y + 1 = y

well, y does equal y

Wrong because the sucessor of a number cannot be equal to that number.

>what is 0.999... = 1

You're literally retarded. Get off Veeky Forums

What about in the limit where y approaches infinity? Unironically asking

>limits are numbers hurrr

You can have limit of (h(y)) = limit of (g(y)) even when h(y) =/= g(y) for any y.

In general, limits follow different rules than regular algebra. Some rules look the same/are the same, but overall ruleset is different.

It's like doing a shogi move when the other person is trying to play chess. Some pieces move the same, but it's really a different overall game.

You need Jesus, nigger.

Log isn't a linear operation, faggot!

It's a true statement. No real lies between and neither is the successor of th other

> make a meme thread
> it's still up after 3 days

thanks goys

How can y + 1 = y be a thing?

True, but the equation log(y)+log(1)=log(y) always holds.

so? it has nothing to do with y+1=y

exactly. my point was that he didn't use log incorrectly, like the guy above me implied.

the guy said log isn't a linear operation, so OP's second line doesn't follow. the fact that the equation in itself holds has nothing to do with it. it's a non sequitur

In fact it does logically follow from the first line. This is because, if the statement P is false, then (P implies Q) is true for any statement Q whatsoever.

wew lad

>how do I into logic
You (falsely) concluded truth from non-P, not from (P implies Q)

huh? I pointed out that if (y+1=y) then (log(y)+log(1)=log(y)). I did not conclude that log(y)+log(1)=log(y), although that happens to be true in this case.

Then use nonsensical :D

What is your argument?
that y+1=y?
If this is the case then subtract y from both sides

1=0
log(1) != 0
False it is

>log(1) != 0
log(1) != log(0)

i meant to post this

If you read this in reverse it becomes quite apparent where your mistake is

y = y

log(y) = log(y)

log(y) + log(1) = log(y) ****

>In the above line, you did not perform the same operation on each side. Yes, log(1) is the same as 0, but you did not add the same quantity to both sides of the equation, you only added a quantity to one side of the equation. When you add to one side you must add it to both (even 0).

Op is a moron but your point is invalid.

>log(y) + log(1) = log(y) + 0
>log(y) + log(1) = log(y)

These are equivalent statements

Look, Im OP!!!

>log (1) = 0

>log (y) + 0 = log (y)

>log (y) + log(1)+ log(1)+ log(1)+ log(1)+ log(1) = log(y)
∴ y + 5 = y

Yes, those statements are equivalent in sum for right now, but you did not perform the same operation one each side. (read: not same value, SAME OPERATION)

but an equation only holds true if the SAME OPERATION is performed on both sides.

even if that operation is adding 0, it must be done to both sides. Identity theorum still holds true, but you cant just "ignore" an operation on one side and not the other, otherwise you wind up with what this guys doing, total non sense:

y = ±∞

There.

∞ is not a real nor a complex number. it is a set of numbers. numbers =/= sets

Never said they were. I just stated something that wasn't real nor complex, and I'm just surprised no one mentioned it already.

Thank you.

log(1) reduced to zero.

Be careful when your messing around with zeros, you can't treat it like any other number.

all these brainlets not realising you are working in the integers modulo 1