prove me wrong

log(y+1) does not equal log(y) + log(1).

>>8838501
log isn't a linear operator

>>8838501
y + 1 = y is impossible for any real or complex numberr

>>8838501
>log(y+1) = log(y) + log(1)

kill yourself

thanks for the (you)'s boys

>>8838503
>>8838509
>>8838525
OP never made that claim

>>8838501
can't prove you wrong because you're correct: log(y) + log(1) = log(y)
as log(1) = 0

File: kys.png (11KB, 598x846px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 598x846px

>>8838501
line one is a contradiction you fucking retarded giganigger

File: 1457655949359.png (1MB, 634x875px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 634x875px

>>8838587

>>8838501
Log(10) = Log(9 + 1) = Log(9) + Log(1) = Log(9)

File: IMG_20170419_085128.jpg (15KB, 720x146px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 720x146px

>>8838760
>>8838501

So this is the true power of autism

>>8838501
The first line is wrong. The rest is okay.

>>8838587
>OP never made that claim
Yes he did
>muh y + 1 = y

well, y does equal y

>>8838501
Wrong because the sucessor of a number cannot be equal to that number.

>>8840523
>what is 0.999... = 1

>>8838587
You're literally retarded. Get off /sci/

>>8840523
What about in the limit where y approaches infinity? Unironically asking

>>8840829
>limits are numbers hurrr

>>8840829
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.

>>8838501
You need Jesus, nigger.

>>8838501
Log isn't a linear operation, faggot!

>>8840526
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

>>8838501
How can y + 1 = y be a thing?

>>8841934
True, but the equation log(y)+log(1)=log(y) always holds.

>>8844946
so? it has nothing to do with y+1=y

>>8844959
exactly. my point was that he didn't use log incorrectly, like the guy above me implied.

>>8844975
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

>>8844983
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.

>>8845042
wew lad

>>8845042
>how do I into logic
You (falsely) concluded truth from non-P, not from (P implies Q)

>>8845073
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.

>>8838510
Then use nonsensical :D

>>8838501
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

>>8845349
>log(1) != 0
log(1) != log(0)

i meant to post this

>>8838501

>>8838501
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).

>>8845655
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

>>8838501
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

>>8845663
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:
>>8845665

File: sip.jpg (234KB, 999x1174px) Image search: [Google]

234KB, 999x1174px

>>8838510
y = ±∞

There.

>>8845676
∞ is not a real nor a complex number. it is a set of numbers. numbers =/= sets

>>8845682
Never said they were. I just stated something that wasn't real nor complex, and I'm just surprised no one mentioned it already.

>>8838762
Thank you.

>>8838501
log(1) reduced to zero.

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

>>8838501
all these brainlets not realising you are working in the integers modulo 1