Is it right?

>>8192223
Learn LaTeX

>>8192223
It surely sounded funnier in your head.

>>8192231
It is a serious attempt.

>>8192235
Attempt at wasting time?

>>8192223
>Eng101 format

Get >>>/out/

File: 10421589_1063139337043608_7012086511344133601_n.jpg (13KB, 308x308px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 308x308px

>But odd plus odd is always odd

>>8192380
/thread

7 + 5 = 12

i think the guy who keeps posting this low tier bait isn't actually victor but just someone with beef with him who wants to make him look an idiot.

>>8192380
>>8192384

Let g and f be odd functions. Explicitly:

[math] f(-x) = -f(x) [/math] and [math] g(-x) = -g(x) [/math]

by definition. Now consider the function
[math] h(x) = f(x) + g(x) [/math]

To be proven is that h(x) is also an odd function so we compute

[math] h(-x) = f(-x) + g(-x) [/math]

but because f and g are odd this implies that

[math] h(-x) = -f(x) - g(x) [/math]

Grouping the negative we end at

[math] h(-x) = -(f(x) + g(x)) [/math]

and indeed

[math] h(-x) = -h(x) [/math]

Therefore, by definition, h is an odd function.

>There are faggots browsing /sci/ that cannot prove such elementary theorems.

>>8192612
7/10 bait

>>8192733
OP said
>the function restatement of the inequality would be a formula that is odd too - but odd plus odd is always odd

He is clearly talking about functions. All I did was prove the theorem he is applying in his 9th statement.

I am not saying he is right, honestly I don't know topology or shit about manifolds to confirm his shit, but at least I do know fucking calculus one unlike all the kiddies in this thread.

Look at this faggot:
>>8192547

hurr durr odd means with numbers rite?

and I remember these were the kinds of proofs we were writing back in calc I even before we did limits and derivatives, just intro to not being a dumbass when it comes to functions.

>>8192760
What is an integer?

>>8192612

He's using functions to represent integers you ignoramus, learn how to integral manifolds.

If the theorems of integer addition are broken in the proof then we have some problems.