A problem in logic and math?
814311
The issue lies in the fact that the original equation is 0=0.\n\nThen, if you put in any value for x, you are dividing by 0 which as we all know, is a "no no."
93641
Okay, 2 + 4= Look at 2 now look at 4, 4 is 4 pieces and 2 is 2 pieces. add the 4th piece and the second piece = 6! Duh!
966057
well well..the second time i see the same question!!\nshow some of ur work buddy.. ur a degree student and u dont simply put the questions on others..u wud never pass that way...\nso prove that u have tried ur best to solve this problem..show some coding that u have made!
164065
The trick with "proofs" like these are generally an obscured division by zero. One of the lines seems to work, though when you divide to cancel out some factors, the quantity you're dividing by could/does equal zero. It's a trick and doesn't say anything substantial about mathematics.
222284
duh...?  what's your question, Mam?  \n\n=0(
780025
x ≤ 5\n\n-- - - - - - -s-
495947
i am intrigued by your idea of LOGIC!!! interesting
958343
you evil Troll! You asked a trick question!\n\n(half of 2) plus 2=3\n            -BUT-\nhalf of (2 plus 2)=2
357221
You are thinking of the book 'Principia Mathematica' by (Bertrand) Russell and Whitehead, written in 1913. The book was actually dedicated to putting mathematics on a logical foundation. It uses rather antiquated notation and really didn't accomplish what it intended to do, but it was a massive effort. The statement that 1+1=2 came in the middle of the second volume of the three volume set. There is a paperback version for about the first half of the first volume that is still available.
747950
It's many years since I did maths but shouldn't there be an = somewhere? And isn't there normally "y" too? I thought it would be fun to stretch my brain for a change but...Am I being obtuse?
885957
You have probably figured out that no number will make this statement true. But don't forget about zero. \nYou will also find problems where even zero does not work. In those cases, "no solution" is the correct answer.
1123895
You'll need to restate that problem.\nIt's not solvable as written.
102547
A begining and no ending: Positive Integers\nAn ending and no begining: Negative Integers
307282
that math formula that proves it is SO WRONG! i just talked about this with someone, if you look at the formula it gets messed up like halfway through.\n\ndo we need to break this down?\none fish + one fish = 2 fish
157925
The problem asks for:\na natural number n wich: n = k*3+1, n=q*5+1, n=r*7+1, n=p*9+1, n=m*11. => n = cM(3,5,7,9)+1 and 11 divides n. (cM(3,5,7,9) = a common multiple of 3,5,7,9). \nYou take the less cM(3,5,7,9) of all, wich is 945, add 1, and you find out that 11 divides it.\nAnswer is:\n\n-- 946 --
133517
the solutions is 7,8,3,2 or 7,6,5,2. The problem works with both sets of numbers.
861532
I think you left something out. If it is the sum of you must have two things to add. If it is the sum of 7 AND a number it would be \n7+x