🚀 go-pugleaf

sam...@marvin.bu.edu (R Othello Signes) came right out and said:
>>> Oh?  Can you prove it?  I can prove 2 = 3 via
>>> 
>>> assume x = y,
>>> then 2(x-y)=3(x-y),
>>> divide through by (x-y),
>>> thus 2=3
>>> 
>>> We KNOW that's false because, by definition, dividing by 0 (or x-y in
>>> the example) is undefined.  You really can't prove anything, since any
>>> proof can contain faulty reasoning or may be based on flawed
>>> assumptions, not to mention exceptions to the rule, like classical
>>> physics in subatomic situations.

>You are an idiot who obviously does not understand proofs.

And you are an idiot who doesn't, unlike the previous poster,
understand that if x=y, x-y is zero...

>Given two numbers {x,y} such that x=y,
>x=y (given)
>x-y=x-y  (common notion: equals minus an equality are equal) 
>2(x-y)=3(x-y) (DOES NOT FOLLOW!  equals multiplied by inequality are NOT equal)

Unless the "equals" are zero, since *anything* multiplied by zero is
still zero.

>So you can't get there to begin with.  If you want to make a witty
>arguement, you should understand the subject you fool.

You are right about his proof being wrong, but you are wrong as to why
it's wrong.  It isn't the multiplication by 2 and 3, it's the division
by zero.  Go learn some math.

     -- Mike "don't be so hasty with the 'idiot' label..." Bartman --