This was...very enlightening tbh. I can understand what he is talking about because I do get the mathematical concepts that correlate to a fallacy thad DNardi did. Namely:
If:
f(x) -> x+1
DOESN'T MEAN:
f(x) -> x+1, x e C , x != 0(or in other words ANY number)
or that:
f-1(x) = 0 (or in other words inverse does not exist)
This is what DNardi did. Just because he proved f(x) -> x+1, he IMMEDIATELY assumed the second true were, get these kicks, true as well! Hah! But where are the tests, where is the proof lol? Just because one is proven, doesn't mean that everything related to it is true as well. Oh wtf...
Maybe DNardi should go back and study High School math some more...



Reply With Quote