What are equations that contradict Mathematical Laws and Theorems?
597619
well that last example doesnt work...they divide by zero and try to let it slip.\n\nThings like Russells paradox messed with the mathematical world for a while.  This paradox deals with sets.\n\nIt says that we have a set R, R is the set of all sets that are not members of themselves.  This means that R  is neither a member of itself nor not a member of itself.\n\nThis is pretty neat, and it was a huge problem with set theory.  It was solved by saying that all sets are members of a universe.  I still claim that its a sticky area.\n\nhope this is what you were looking for.\n\nMatttlocke
267038
You might try reading Whitehead and Russell's Principia Mathematica.  I can't promise it will help, as I haven't read it, but I've been told that this issue is addressed.
820527
criterion is that changing sign of x changes the sign of y\n\nso a & b are symmetric, and other's aren't, since even powers and adding a constant both ruin the symmetry
190806
You would think Pythagoras, but actually not originally.\nHe studied many years at the library of Alexandria (Ancient Egypt), whereupon he came upon this theorem (now named after him) first recorded by an ancient Egyptian mathematician known as (I think) Tet.\nSince it was not permitted to take things from the library, or even copy them he memorized it, then later taught it to his disciples as his own.
889683
There is, it is called Standarad Deviation, if you have a decent Scientific Calculator it shouyld show how to use it.
671401
That would have to be _MATH_ \ni.e. "Calculus, Vector calculus,Chaos Theory, or Differential equations" Just writing this down makes my head spin!
1022238
That's an old fundamental problem.  Mathematicians and physicists tend to disbelieve their own observations and replace their experience with empirical results and tautological proofs.
705654
i dont see anything wrong the way u solved it(mathematically).if there was any condition or state is mentioned about that thing in time or wrt time then u have to reconsider the problem.
901836
I disagree with Peter because when I solved for p in both equations the resulting expressions are different.\n\nHere are my steps and my solutions:\n\nIn the second equation, multiply both sides by (p + 1)\np = r (p + 1)\n\nDistribute r through:\np = rp + r\n\nSubtract rp:\np - rp = r\n\nFactor out a p:\np(1 - r) = r\n\nDivide both sides by (1 - r):\np = r / (1 - r)  \n\nIn the first equation, multiply both sides by r:\np = r(r - 1)\n\nThese are different...
868371
can you give examples (such as the witches equation)
316686
the process u follow is correct, but actually it is wrong. fundamentally wat u did is ok, but technically it is wrong. because this becomes a quadratic equation which has more than 1 root. so this equation has more than 1 answers for which it is true.
153034
No, nobody really can prove it, with assuming several axioms\nfirst. There are certain things you have to assume are true in your universe, without necessary being able to check them. From those axioms, you can derive conclusions (theorems) that are always true, but only in that particular\nuniverse. The discussed operation of addition is one such theorem. If you assume that the axioms of natural numbers are true, then this addition becomes quite trivival. If you assume those axioms of natural numbers to be false, then the above operation of addition might become false with a different set of supposition. In other words, only with the facts given, one cannot prove, nor disprove, the fact of addition. It all depends on the set of assumptions you would have made before adding the two ones.
1105069
a paradox is an apparent contradiction, but not nescessarily a contradiction. something thats counterintuitive
444813
A quotation by Harvey J Gold, Author of Mathematical Modelling of Biological Systems,  may go towards assisting your analysis of the situation:\n\n" The result of a mathematical development should be continuously checked against one's own intuition about what constitutes reasonable biological behaviour. Whenever such a check reveals disagreement, the following possibilities must be considered:\n\na : A mistake has been made in the formal mathematical development\n\nb: The starting assumptions are incorrect and/or constitute a too drastic oversimplification\n\nc: One's own intuition about the biological field is inadequately developed.\n\nd: A penetrating new principle has been discovered. "\n\nDo let me know whether you found meaning in the above, and if you did analyse your model based on the checks recommended by him, what among a,b,c,d was the reason of the discrepancy. Of course this is assuming that you have already established the discrepancy beyond doubt.
103563
Curiouscat is way kewl.....good answer on her part.\n\nE = mc^2 has been proven valid over and over again. Altho, in science, everything is theory, because someone may come along and find a flaw or correction.\n\nHowever up the present, this equation is rock solid.
792776
Nature is hardly mathematical !!\n\nTh
1088429
Any demonstration of this false fact will be flawed, and often uses a hidden division by zero\n\nfor instance:\na and b are real numbers different from zero:\na = b\n\na^2 = ab\na^2 - b^2 = ab - b^2\n(a - b)(a + b) = b(a - b)\n\nhence: \na + b = b,\n2b = b, and:\n2 = 1\n\nHere, i divided by "(a-b)", which is illegal since a -b =0