Disprove this. Protip: You can't.

Why is infinity+infinity still infinity, but infinity-infinity zero?
Shouldn't it be 2 times infinity?
I know that's not how it works but let's assume it is like OP proposes.

>he treats infinity like a variable
Laughingdog.jpg

>>8601024
multiplying infinity by 1

pls leave quickly

Was there a new Numberphile video?

>>8601035
also right side has issues as well but i cant remember the rule...

eh, I detest this kind of low-aiming bait

File: 1446052791325.png (78KB, 310x370px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 310x370px

Easy there with that rotated 8

this is actually an april fools joke from a yt video by a german maths channel
https://youtu.be/IFAX5jD1fsk?t=2m13s

File: 1481531304693.jpg (411KB, 1462x1462px) Image search: [Google]

411KB, 1462x1462px

>>8601036

>>8601024
mistake on the right side
infinity + infinity == 2 infinities,
equation
infinity + infinity != 1 infinity
That's where lies your mistake.

>>8601024
let [math]Q:=(Q \implies A) [/math] where [math]A := \neg ([/math] your claim[math])[/math]

assume for contradiction that your claim is true
then [math] A[/math] is false.
by contraposition we have that [math]Q [/math] is false.
since [math]Q = (Q \implies A)=(\neg Q \vee A)[/math] we obtain:
[math]\neg Q = \neg(\neg Q \vee A) = \neg \neg Q \wedge \neg A[/math]

But now we have [math](Q \wedge \neg A)[/math]
but this can not be since by contraposition [math]\neg A \implies \neg Q[/math]
We arrive at a contradiction and conclude that our initial assumption (your claim) is false. [math]\square [/math]

>>8601036
kek'd hard

but come on, numberphile has been quite good lately, I love the japanese guy

File: 1482534934981.png (859KB, 1296x797px) Image search: [Google]

859KB, 1296x797px

>>8601506
It's still the biggest scientific meme channel.

>>8601675
That was funny, thank you

>>8601675
thank you anon