| Home | RSS Feeds |
| Funny Pictures | Funny Videos |
| Funny GIFs | YouTube Videos |
| Text/Links | Comic Editor |
| User Rankings | Channels |
| Copyright Removal Request | |
| |
#62
-
theothersuperman (05/11/2012) [-]
BUT WAIT!!!
To contradict the first statement, one must first assume that the said first statement is true,
Hence we assume STUDY = FAIL, so STUDY - FAIL = 0
BUT, in one of the steps, the second proof divided by (STUDY - FAIL) meaning that he divided by 0! and you cannot divide by 0!!! Hypocrisy!
Contradiction to a contradictory proof to a proof which proves a contradiction.
To contradict the first statement, one must first assume that the said first statement is true,
Hence we assume STUDY = FAIL, so STUDY - FAIL = 0
BUT, in one of the steps, the second proof divided by (STUDY - FAIL) meaning that he divided by 0! and you cannot divide by 0!!! Hypocrisy!
Contradiction to a contradictory proof to a proof which proves a contradiction.
Technically you're kinda right, apart from you got the assumption for the first statement wrong. What people are missing is the 'no' is not a unit by it's self, it acts as a minus.
study=no fail ...is basically... study=-fail (1), so -study= fail (2)
(1)+(2) would be... study-study=-fail+fail in other words 0 = 0 alot more legit that the bullshit scribbled onto that desk, huh?
Of course you're basically substituting the same equation but re-arranged into the original one, which always cancels down to zero on both sides and is entirely pointless in the first place.
study=no fail ...is basically... study=-fail (1), so -study= fail (2)
(1)+(2) would be... study-study=-fail+fail in other words 0 = 0 alot more legit that the bullshit scribbled onto that desk, huh?
Of course you're basically substituting the same equation but re-arranged into the original one, which always cancels down to zero on both sides and is entirely pointless in the first place.