If you had to convince me that 1 = 5, how would you do it?

use the proof for 1=2 four consecutive times

>>8989708
I wouldn't. All "proofs" I've seen involved division by zero.

>>8989708
1 = 5 (mod 2)
1 = 5 (mod 4)

Put a gun to your head and tell you it's true lmao how else??

>>8989715
>All "proofs" I've seen involved division by zero.

Either that, or they take the square root of both sides of the equation but they deliberately neglect to consider the negative square root. Example:

x = -2

Square both sides:

x^2 = 4

Now take the square root of both sides:

x = 2

Now substitute the original definition of x = -2 from above:

-2 = 2

Now add 3 to both sides of the equation:

1 = 5

let [math]1=[1]_4[/math] and [math]5=[5]_4[/math]

>>8989735
holy fuck +1

>>8989715
how about this one
[math]2=2\sqrt{1}=2\sqrt{(−1)(−1)}=2\sqrt{-1}\sqrt{-1}=2\cdot i\cdot i=−2[/math]
add 3 to both sides

File: base 10.png (16KB, 297x255px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 297x255px

>>8989708
[math]5\mod{4} \equiv 1[/math]
note that every base is base 10

[eqn]x^5=\underbrace{x+x+\cdots +x}_{x^4\text{ times}}[/eqn]
differentiating both sides
[eqn]5x^4=\underbrace{1+1+\cdots +1}_{x^4\text{ times}}=x^4[/eqn]
now dividing by [math]x^4[/math]
[eqn]5=1[/eqn]

>>8989825
lmao this is good

>>8989708
Violence

Take 5 pieces of gum. Stick them all together. You have 1 piece of gum.

>>8989780
I like it!

>>8989780

>>8989856
But here is more detailed explanation.
https://www.khanacademy.org/math/algebra2/introduction-to-complex-numbers-algebra-2/the-imaginary-numbers-algebra-2/v/i-as-the-principal-root-of-1-a-little-technical

>>8989735
How do you solve that though?

Have you to write sqrt(4) = 2 or -2
...or what?

>>8989708
I'd tell you your an idiot

>>8989896
>Have you to write sqrt(4) = 2 or -2

The most important thing is to understand the difference between these two things:

(1) The meaning of the square root symbol itself.

(2) The process of taking the square root of something.

The square root symbol itself only means the positive root. For example, this is true:

[math]\sqrt{4} = 2[/math]

and this is false:

[math]\sqrt{4} = -2[/math]

But when you take the square root of something, you must consider both the positive and negative cases. For example, this equation is true for both x = 2 and x = -2:

[math]x^2 = 4[/math]

so when you take the square root of both sides of this equation, you MUST consider the possibility that x could be either 2 or -2. To do this, you split the analysis into two different branches, and continue each branch independently -- with the understanding that the correct result might appear only on one branch, and the other branch must be discarded as being incorrect. But it's also possible that both branches could be correct.

strap a cage of rats to your chest

I'd tell you that "proof" and "mathematics" are racist sexist oppressive social constructs by the white privileged hetero cis patriarchy.

>>8989825
I wonder how many people could find out what's wrong with this

>>8990179
partially treating the x as a constant

>>8990193
Yeah, I meant I wonder how big the percentage of people with some university math experience would be who could pinpoint the error

>>8989708
Let's work in axiomatic system where 1=5
Convinced yet?

>>8989708
datamining to get /sci/ to come up with arguments that defeat logic?

surely, you jest.

I would torture you

>>8990193
It's actually more about not using the definition of the power function for reals. You can't take the derivative of a function whose domain is a discrete set like the naturals.

You never read 1984?

>>8989708
>Present a candy bar
>Hey anon, do you want one?
>Cut the candy bar into 5 pieces
>Do you still want one?

>>8989821
>that picture
Brainlet here, what the fuck are they even talking about.

>>8989708
>¿How to use question marks?
Who writes these things

>>8990390
its an xkcd-tier joke
in base 4 the number 4 would be written as 10.
in fact in base n the number would be written 10

>>8990428
Oh, I think I got it. Thanks

>>8990390
>being a brainlet
4 in base 4 is 10

>>8989708
torture and brainwash you for months, then take you to a room to confront your deepest darkest fear or admit that 1 = 5.

>>8990179
the sum implies that x is a natural number, and hence it is not differentiable since it is not defined on an open set?

>>8989848
this is by far the best proof in this thread

>>8989708
Let 5=1.
By the reflexive property, we can conclude that 1=5.

>>8989821
my sides

>>8991694
lmao

5x = x
5 = x/x
5 = 1

look at a clock, then the minute hand points to one, 5 minutes have passed.

>>8989708
define symbol "5" and "1" as symbols representing S(0) in Peano axioms

From the definition of the Peano axioms, it follows trivially that 5=1

>>8989716
this. I'd use an algebraic structure where those collection of symbols held true.

>>8989735
huh.

x=1
x=5
x=x

>>8989780
[math]\sqrt-1=\pm i[/math]
it's pretty much what this says
>>8989735

>>8989708
I'd tell you noam chomsky said it was true.

>>8991800
>how a code monkey think

>>8989708

I would cut a pie into five pieces and invite you to contemplate their equality.