/proofs/

How about a proof thread? No matter if babby math, advanced math, CS theory or logic. Post your proofs here. Ill start.

IF a halt function exists then:

void halting_troll( void (*funfun)(void*) ){
if(halt(funfun, (void*) funfun))
while(1){}
return;
}

would be valid but what is the result of >halt(halting_troll, (void*) halting_troll);
QED

>Look at me, I'm so [eqn]smart[/eqn]! I wrote a proof in [eqn]latex[/eqn]!

>actual question about serious topic (propably the only topic you can't really fight about)
>agressive shitposting-reply + "you did it to difficult"-reply

I fucking love you Veeky Forums.

If god exists then why does bad things happen

QED

God doesn't give a shit.

>Post your proofs here.
You make it sound like you made that proof, which you didn't. Unless your name is Michael Sipser

If a=b and b=c, a is equal to c.

I like this thread idea OP. I'll contribute with a proof of the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality (for reals) I just wrote. Pic related.

If my parents love me then why don't they do my homework

QED

Ok, i didn't,.Correction: post anyones proof, or any at all.

Correction: Post anyones proofs, or just proofs at all.

>proposition
>no proof

Are you literally retarded?

>in 2016 the typical Veeky Forums poster cannot prove that the standard equality is an equivalence relation

Please prove me wrong, it is not that hard anyways.

Every Smooth Manifold admits a Riemannian Metric

Pf:

- Let [math]M[/math] be a smooth manifold.

- Let [math]{\mathcal{A}_M} = {\left\{ {\left( {{U_\alpha },{h_\alpha }} \right)} \right\}_{\alpha \in A}}[/math] be an atlas on [math]M[/math].

- Let [math]{\left\{ {{\tau _\alpha }} \right\}_{\alpha \in A}}[/math] be a partition of unity subordinate to [math]{\left\{ {{U_\alpha }} \right\}_{\alpha \in A}}[/math].

- Let [math]\delta[/math] be the standard euclidean metric.

- Define [math]g \equiv \sum\limits_{\alpha \in A} {{\tau _\alpha } \cdot } {h_\alpha }^*\delta [/math].

[math]\square [/math]

...

Looks like you can't. Just so you know, transitivity is not a fucking axiom. If you are making new mathematics and you just assume transitivity instead of defining more integral axioms then you'd be shit at math.

Assume that a=b and b=c

a=b implies that a is contained in b, and b=c implies that b is contained in c.

By definition this means that x element of a implies x element of b implies x element of c.

Therefore a is contained in c.

On the other hand, c=b implies c is contained in b and b=a implies b is contained in a.

By definition x element of c implies x element of b implies x element of a.

Therefore c is contained in a.

If c is contained in a and a is contained in c then by definition c=a.

The proof only assumes symmetry of equality and that is an even more trivial proof.

it looks like he just pulled f(x) out of his ass
that's the derivative of a taylor series?

Haha i'm such a sapiosexual guize xD xD

>imblygning thou could not compartmentalise any spoof until the glorious HOL

But to be serious, i think it is better to write a statement.

>it looks like he just pulled f(x) out of his ass

He pulled the whole proof out of his ass, which is why is looks like shit just like every other analytic proof.

I don't really understand the point of this thread. We recite proofs from textbooks and circlejerk over it?

Is there a point in any thread on Veeky Forums?

No, but OP referred to it as an "actual question about a serious topic" and bitched and moaned that someone didn't take his shitpost seriously.

Is there a point to any thread on Veeky Forums?

Doesnt say anywhere god is good