| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
#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.
User avatar #94 to #62 - whereistherumgone (05/11/2012) [-]
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.
#66 to #62 - N. Korean citizen (05/11/2012) [-]
the assumption is study = no fail
and no study = fail, what are you talking about?
 Friends (0)