wats wrong with this proof?
812806
The error comes from getting the square root of:\n(3 - 5/2)(3 - 5/2) = (2 - 5/2)(2 - 5/2)\n\nLet's give a similar example.  We are given:\n(1)² = (-1)²\n\nBut here we cannot get the square root of both sides, since we know that\n1 ≠ -1\n\nThe same thing goes with your example.\n^_^
115650
--5 2 0 1 -----  F L O W\n--4 2 0 1 -----  B L O W\n--1 0 2 5 -----  W O L F\n-------------------------\n1 0 4 2 7 ----- N O B L E\n\nBut still N and W value are coming same...does this problem have solution. If you have then can you please send the answer to my mail id hssiddhu@yahoo.com
165595
An informal proof in the mathematics literature requires weeks of peer review to be checked, and may still contain bugs.\n\nWhen asked in geometry class to prove something by your teacher, you are giving an informal proof.
579155
The first one isn't, because it's undefined when x=4 (assuming the (x-4) is the denominator, not just the x)\n\nThe second one is; it's a horizontal line with no breaks or holes.
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.
239680
try to find the proof first
733865
its between negative one and 0
344009
No, because it doesn't.\nThere's a number of "proofs" out there that rely on dividing by 0, even when it's not obvious that's what's going on.\nDivide by zero, and you can prove anything!
759105
False... y has to be 2...\n(3,2) is a solution, but not (3,1).
856009
false,\nuse the identity and -identity,\nboth are invertible, but the sum is the zero matrix, that is NOT invertible.....
841265
its a square with 13 feet sde.\n\nIf a proof is to be sumbitted ask her her to find are at different side lenghts,\n\n1,12\n2,11\n......\n......\n.......\n13,13\n\n14,2 etc and hence conclude.\n\nI i dont know a better proof for fifth grader. otherwise i will nedd to use maxima minima or a quadratic equation atleast to prove that\n\n\nsorry i cant help much\n\n\n\nbythe way you dont adjust anything  like  13.00001 or 12.9999999\n\nsquare is a special case of rectangle with length=breadth
492690
S(I)+3f (g)--> SF (g)\n..........2...........6
312174
It seems undefined since for x <= 0 and x != odd number, x^x doesn't work out so well.  If it's x->0+, then it's just 1.
247429
there has been alot of work on showing that at least a certain percent of zeros must lie on the line. I think we're up to around 90%. It is unclear to me as to whether or not a proof can be found in this way. My guess is no
300657
let a = b  \nMultiply both sides by a \na² = ab  \n Add (a² - 2ab) to both sides \na² + a² - 2ab = ab + a² - 2ab  \n Factor the left, and collect like terms on the right \n2(a² - ab) = a² - ab  \n Divide both sides by (a² - ab)\n2 = 1\n(The place where the proof goes wrong is the very last step.  If a² - ab = 0, then you would be dividing by zero, which is undefined.)
778163
The problem is to show that f is identically 0 using the density of the rational numbers. I would strongly suggest to the asker that they do their own homework at this level. If you don't understand the questions or techniques, you will have a *lot* of trouble later on.
413530
Your argument is of the form\n\n1) All As are Bs,\n2) If C is B, then...\n\nNo valid conclusion follows from this form.