Wouldn't the number of terms in that series be odd for 0 to be equal to 1?
And if you regroup it another way, you can get 0 to equal to -1...
However, in both cases, the number of terms would be odd, and the terms needed for the 0's to be consistent would have to be even - (1-1) = 1-1 = 0 (two terms)
I appreciate the videos you upload - they help me out alot, and I thank you for that, and though I may be falling behind and even failing in my math class, I'm sure I'm right here.
I love how Patrick is so knowledgeable in maths he is able to display something interesting and simple enough even the trolls can talk over. Bravo good sir! : )
@kehren1 you are ignorant... you can stop the equation whenever you want, therefore it does not have to be infinitely continuous. This equation is not true, but that isn't the reason why.
I'm having trouble seeing how this works. Since you're adding and subtracting an infinite number of 1's, even though you shifted the brackets over by one, shouldn't there be a -1 that comes up at the end? Yes there's no end, because it's infinite, surely there's a -1 that comes up in "..." section.
I don't think this explanation is credible because you altered the number of terms. I will say that there is some truth in math being kind of a universal phenomena and not something that's just mundane.
An example is the argument about how much space there is. We can only see as far as the speed of light allows. Chances are there is an infinite amount of space though. This sounds kind of weird until you realize there is an infinite amount of numbers. Don't ask how that logic makes sense to me.
Is the problem order of operations? That you need to do what's in parenthesis first, before the stuff outside it, therefore that extra straggling "1" throws things off?
The thing with 0=1 is basically changing the order of the equation.
Examples: You can switch 2+1 to 1+2 and still get 3, but what you can't do is change 2/1 to 1/2 and expect to get the same answer.
Another example is like (1+5)*(1+6)=42.. You change the parentheses around to 1+(5*1)+6 and you'll get 12. You're basically tampering with something set in stone, when you do that, of course you're going to get something different. (btw when i say "you" i mean the guido guy, even if he is long dead)
@patrickJMT but it doesn't make sense... you had 6 terms in the beginning and you end up with 7 in your final equation. So it must be 1=(1-1)+(1-1)+(1-1)+1 instead which is 1=1 naturally
I'm not sure of what i'm supposed to see, but what i do see is on the fourth line you just added another 1 into the mix. 0+0+0+0 += 0, and so does +3-3, but +4-3=1. And that's what it looks like you did.
@Sugadaddy774 ha, yes. i guess others think the same. if i had titled it: ' A Divergent Alternating Series ' , I am pretty sure no one would have watched :)
Patrick - Your mathematical acumen is evident in all your other videos. Thanks for them. I have learned quite a bit. As far as this video goes, I appreciate your humor. You certainly would know that that the very first statement 0 = 0+0+..(infinite times) which equals 0 x infinity is where the issue is. LHS = determinate and RHS = indeterminate.
You are using language to manipulate evidence. You have no evidence. Once again, someone who is not trained in the ways of science is using theology as evidence of it's self. That's circular reasoning.
actually your right... originally the series converged to 0, but after the shifty thing with the parentheses and rewriting the zeros as 1-1 it became an alternating series.... the whole thing is screwed up period.
you've just got an additional '1' to the series. :/ plus i dont think i have ever heard of any rule in math about moving the brackets in an equation (or the sum in this case)
Patrick, serious question, shouldn't this be a parody of Atheism views concerning the origin of the universe? Most serious theories for Atheism have a beginning, yet they aren't allowed to fall back on super-natural forces?
Where in the world did that extra 1 come from (When you rewrite your parenthesis.). If those dots mean it's on going, then you can't just shift / include one number from them and exclude the rest in your calculation. It puzzles me T-T
#i is the one true god! it's imaginary and it came from nothing! because a square root of a negative does not exist, yet the #i which is the square root of -1 still apperars! it is imaginary and real all at the same time! can't you all see! ALL PRAISE The # I! LOL
sorry i am a little bit confused here.if u read the comment can u plz replay.on the 3rd line there was six 1s how come on the 4th line there is seven 1s???
I find the Euler's identity e^(-i*pi) much more interesting (and without math errors like the posted example). an irrational number to the power of an imaginary number and another irrational number equaling -1.
@PatrickJMT it's cute when you say tada!! :)) haha LOL i'm just thinking if you are quite laughing or smiling when you're doing this video. haha (sorry for the bad english) Ü
it's cute when you say tada!! :)) haha LOL i'm just thinking if you are quite laughing or smiling when you're doing this video. haha (sorry for the bad english) Ü
it's cute when you say tada!! :)) haha LOL i'm just thinking if you are quite laughing or smiling when you're doing this video. haha (sorry for the bad english) Ü
Ah that's quite clever... however I think the problems lies with the fact the associative law can only really be applied to expressions that aren't an infinite summations such as the one presented; Grandi's series: n=0Σ∞ of (-1)^n.
@pooeyyeoop1 I liked the idea however you can't really define the last expression only because there isn't a last a expression, to define a final expression would be to make the sum finite rather than infinite :)
The proof is defeated by the fact the that -1 & 1 are added simultaneously in pairs. Thus they immediately cancel each other out. Otherwise the number would not be constant, it would be constantly switching between -1 and 0 forever. As we are just dealing with a single number and not a function this is nonsensical. Changing the brackets (which is legal) does not actually affect how/when the numbers are cancelling.
In my opinion anyways. But what would I know? I'm just an undergrad.
Haha, this made me laugh... now here we go with creationists using this as a method to prove the existence of god even though they won't understand where this statement comes from..
if we were to number all the () the first time we would have say k () after we erase every () and add the new ones we would in every case put in the -1 from the n () with the 1 from the n+1 () exept the 1 from thefirst () and the -1 from the k ()
understood or did i mess somthing up in my explanation?
Interesting, but yea, it doesn't work because of the order of operations. Lol, those of you who don't get it, you can't just move parenthesis with subtraction unless you change it to adding negative ones.
Shifting the parentheses just changed the order of operations. Restructuring an equation in such a way will yield different results. The left side was true for the former equation, but it became false for the new equation. If this is the basis for anyone's argument, then lol....
1 + (-1+1) + (-1 +1) + -1 =still equals zero. he moved the paranthesis over but for every 0 theres a +1 and a-1 he threw out one of the -1s and got himself an answer of 1 am i right??? if not then i dont get it. i mean it looks really clear and basic that what he did was confuse himself
good video, i appreciate the message that you say at the end of this video, math should be something interesting and thought provoking as opposed to dry and boring! its just too bad most of our youth doesnt see it that way.
you have six 1s on one part, then the next one you make it 7 1s, that's why it equal to 1. you forgot a -1 at the end, that would make it equal to 0..
There's nothing wrong with math, just dumb people trying to be smart!
Yeah, this is covered in some advanced calculus texts. Basically (I can't type set anything) we have an infinite series whose nth term is divergent. if the limit of the nth term as n goes to infinity doesn't exist (or it does not equal zero) then the infinite series is divergent. Another way of looking at it is no matter how far you go into the series, and are left with an even number of terms, I can always add one more term to make the partial sum equal to -/+1.
To be fair, this doesnt prove the existence of a god, but rather that you can get something from nothing... So pretty much we are still at the same place to where we started (christians say you can't get something from nothing so there has to be a god an athiests saying you can't get god from nothing).
Um, what about that un-grouped negative one allllllllllll the way at the end of your indefinite series? Wouldn't it still be capable of summing with the one at the beginning in order to equal zero?
There has to be a god, because how can nothing turn in to something?? Supposedly before everything there was nothing, who caused the big bang if there was nothing there to cause it?? You know??
the 2nd and 3rd steps have 6 numbers and then in the 4th step he added another 1 ...to make 7 numbers so that then in the next step it would equal 1....FAIL
0=1-1 is the final ans... cause when you move the last +1 to the beginning, you also should consider the existence of a -1 for that +1 as stated in the beginning...
Two completely different equations. Ya slipped in the positive one at the beginning of the equation and called it regrouping.... sly little devil you ;)
you're comparing apples to bananas. the formula 1-1 does equal 0, however this is just school house math used to understand value of numbers. In a real world situation; lets use chemistry for example, 1 positively charged oxygen bonds with 2 negatively charged hydrogen ions, the net charge is 0 but there is still an molecule of water. this equation has no application to the real world. It just serves as a tool to keep ignorant Christians like yourselves mesmerized by simple numbers
♥ For the fact that he tried to use an incorrect series of numbers to prove God. Sound just like a Christian. "I have the conclusion, now what evidence do I have to back it up?" As opposed to a scientist/researcher/a-logical-thinking-person/any-person-with-common-sense: "I have the evidence, now what conclusion can I make from it?"
The series 0+0+0+....... is a convergent series, i.e. the limit of partial sums is 0.
The series 1-1+1-1+1-1+...... is an alternating series which is NOT convergent. This is true because any even partial sum will be 0, while any odd partial sum is 1. Thus the limit of the sequence of partial sums is not zero, hence the series does not converge. If a series does not converge, then it is called divergent.
So the error is to write 0+0+0+... = 1-1+1-1+1-1+...
Uhm, in the 3rd line you added 1.... in both before you started with (1-1) or 1-1 but the 3rd one yo u started with 1 + ___ etc.... did you really think nobody would notice this..?
And no, 0 can not equal 1 because if you multiply 1x2 you get 2 while if you multiply 0x2 you get 0. Hence the same applies that while 1-1 is equivalent to 0, adding a (+1) to that breaks the equation, because 1-1 does not equal 1 nor does 0. i know its obvious but i know some fool wouldve attacked me on this
I think Mr. Ubaldus was right, and I'm being absolutely serious. My math skills are limited, but my mind is sharp. If anyone would like to discuss this topic, then feel free to contact me. We could have a civil discussion, or perhaps "nasty," depending on your preference.
oneness is the main principle is most religions. and is a holy number, because the universe is one. there are separate parts, but really, the universe is not separate. we think everything is different, but when we examine space and time, i think we'll find exactly how much the same we are really are. God or no God, does believing in him make a difference for you?
i find it weird that in old stories from back in the day and pictures it seemed common to see gods or forms of gods in a physical sense and now a days its not visibly seen
Two things: 1) Did I miss a day in class where they said it was okay to completely disregard order of operations? If you begin with a parenthetical math problem, once you simplify, you don't get to just shift the parenthesis and create a brand new problem as if the answer to the new problem has anything to do with the previous. Since when did this become okay? Not that it really matters because we're still dealing with addition and subtraction which 2) @Pickleninjai demonstrates quite nicely.
Who's to say God doesn't have a physical form? Doesn't the Bible say God talked to Moses face to face like a man speaketh to another? Aren't humans made in the image of God? Wasn't Jesus also called Emanuel that translates to "God among us". Don't kid yourself, of course God has a body. There is no such thing as immaterial matter.
Who's to say God doesn't have a physical form? Doesn't the Bible say God talked to Moses face to face like a man speaketh to another? Aren't humans made in the image of God? Wasn't Jesus also called Emanuel that translates to "God among us". Don't kid yourself, of course god has a body. There is no such thing as immaterial matter.
Who's to say God doesn't have a physical form? Doesn't the Bible say God talked to Moses face to face like a man speaketh to another? Aren't humans made in the image of God? Wasn't Jesus also called Emanuel that means translates to "God among us". Don't kid yourself, of course god has a body. There is no such thing as immaterial matter.
If this was true even though i know its not, wouldn't then this disprove the existence of God because if something was to come from nothing then there would be no use for a God. Even in the theory of evolution something comes from nothing in the fact that the original particles that created the big-bang would have had to come from nothing if there was no God to create them.
but if in the next line you take out the () and leave 1-1 then now you have two numbers instead of an expression that equals zero. From there you can see Pickleninjai's answer to be right up there.
To anyone making a big deal on whether or not got does exist through this... The point of god and Christianity is believing when you're not inclined to believe, faith. The minute we actually prove gods existence, the whole point of religion is gone
As Pickleninjai said you are not adding the very last -1 in the equation so it would be 0 = 1 + ... -1 and that would be 0 = 0... And still no proof of good.. :) Math major here :)
i do find it interesting, but if u think about it, he just proved that 0 = 1, not the existence of God. he just put a Biblical phrase and matched it with math, which most mathematicians would never do. still, highly interesting :D
if math will ever prove the existence of god (spoiler: it won't), it will be care of Mandelbrot and the discovery that the big bang was a localized event in a sea of infinite matter.
i think the big thing is that there was supposed to be no matter. There might have been energy which according to e=mc^2 would allow the creation of the universe. God could only possibly be energy, and if energy created the entire universe those people will say god is everything as they already do.
I don't think there is a god, but that is how i think all the religions could explain their gods.
how did Guido get the extra 1? cos in the beginning there is 6 1's there and in the second last statement there are 7? but nice description of maths as "dry, boring..."
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Lmfao at those retards talking about divering or convering, the 3rd and 4th term are just different, you can't equal on to the other. It has nothing to do with series.
pause at 1:56 and think about it that where did an extra +1 came from it should never exist or it should be followed by -1
abdullahmansoor1 3 minutes ago
...and at the end of the line is a lone -1 in a paranthesis to cancel the first plus one out. (For the record I believe in God)
DoctorRegis 9 hours ago
@patrickJMT
Wouldn't the number of terms in that series be odd for 0 to be equal to 1?
And if you regroup it another way, you can get 0 to equal to -1...
However, in both cases, the number of terms would be odd, and the terms needed for the 0's to be consistent would have to be even - (1-1) = 1-1 = 0 (two terms)
I appreciate the videos you upload - they help me out alot, and I thank you for that, and though I may be falling behind and even failing in my math class, I'm sure I'm right here.
Trollunoobs 11 hours ago
It's because whether we admit it or not, there's always going to be another -1 to cancel out that first 1... right?
RPM82210 14 hours ago
I love how Patrick is so knowledgeable in maths he is able to display something interesting and simple enough even the trolls can talk over. Bravo good sir! : )
justwilmot 22 hours ago
@justwilmot hahahhah ;)
patrickJMT 11 hours ago
since the sequence is never ending, the equation cannot be solved
kehren1 1 day ago
@kehren1 you are ignorant... you can stop the equation whenever you want, therefore it does not have to be infinitely continuous. This equation is not true, but that isn't the reason why.
RParnell93 6 hours ago
@RParnell93 no need to call someone ignorant. let's act like big boys and girls in here please.
patrickJMT 1 hour ago
I'm having trouble seeing how this works. Since you're adding and subtracting an infinite number of 1's, even though you shifted the brackets over by one, shouldn't there be a -1 that comes up at the end? Yes there's no end, because it's infinite, surely there's a -1 that comes up in "..." section.
TheSiIentOrchestra 1 day ago
Btw, why did you decide not to be a philosophy major?
Shorty20122012 3 days ago
@Shorty20122012
well, not much to do with a philosophy major, bro.
For us average joes, it's pretty darn hard to make money out of our passions.
The3nlightened0ne 2 days ago
I don't think this explanation is credible because you altered the number of terms. I will say that there is some truth in math being kind of a universal phenomena and not something that's just mundane.
An example is the argument about how much space there is. We can only see as far as the speed of light allows. Chances are there is an infinite amount of space though. This sounds kind of weird until you realize there is an infinite amount of numbers. Don't ask how that logic makes sense to me.
Shorty20122012 3 days ago
Are you actually allowed to just 'move the parentheses over'? That changes the equation right? lol
Natenator77 3 days ago
Is the problem order of operations? That you need to do what's in parenthesis first, before the stuff outside it, therefore that extra straggling "1" throws things off?
Juxtaroberto 3 days ago
Whoa Brah! That one at the beginning came out of nowhere! Fuuuarrrkkk....
Fatality72 3 days ago
The thing with 0=1 is basically changing the order of the equation.
Examples: You can switch 2+1 to 1+2 and still get 3, but what you can't do is change 2/1 to 1/2 and expect to get the same answer.
Another example is like (1+5)*(1+6)=42.. You change the parentheses around to 1+(5*1)+6 and you'll get 12. You're basically tampering with something set in stone, when you do that, of course you're going to get something different. (btw when i say "you" i mean the guido guy, even if he is long dead)
chrism4n14 3 days ago
a lot of people have been fool by this ..actually.. no matter how long the equation.. there is always a -1 to cancel the 1 at the front.. peace.:-)
aimanacap 3 days ago
@patrickJMT but it doesn't make sense... you had 6 terms in the beginning and you end up with 7 in your final equation. So it must be 1=(1-1)+(1-1)+(1-1)+1 instead which is 1=1 naturally
kaka4ever100 4 days ago
@kaka4ever100 he had an infinite number of terms in the beginning
watch it again
flowiepanda 2 days ago
@kaka4ever100
No, because it begins with a proof of 0 = ...
So anything to the right of the equation, that being 1 + (-1 + 1)... equals 1 since an infinite series of a 0 plus an unpaired 1 is 1
killazerg1 2 days ago
it's just an extra 1 in the 4th line...
akkappul 4 days ago
I'm not sure of what i'm supposed to see, but what i do see is on the fourth line you just added another 1 into the mix. 0+0+0+0 += 0, and so does +3-3, but +4-3=1. And that's what it looks like you did.
Loving your videos,
vkain100 4 days ago
The series diverges :)
ermichae 4 days ago
WOW you? a philosophy?? no way who'd ever thought!
Xytos 5 days ago
This video is cruel. Trying to study Taylor series only to see this in the related videos...it's like bait for me to waste time!
But seriously, thanks for all of the help!
Sugadaddy774 5 days ago
@Sugadaddy774 ha, yes. i guess others think the same. if i had titled it: ' A Divergent Alternating Series ' , I am pretty sure no one would have watched :)
patrickJMT 5 days ago 2
Patrick - Your mathematical acumen is evident in all your other videos. Thanks for them. I have learned quite a bit. As far as this video goes, I appreciate your humor. You certainly would know that that the very first statement 0 = 0+0+..(infinite times) which equals 0 x infinity is where the issue is. LHS = determinate and RHS = indeterminate.
msvenkat 5 days ago
You are using language to manipulate evidence. You have no evidence. Once again, someone who is not trained in the ways of science is using theology as evidence of it's self. That's circular reasoning.
frosted1030 5 days ago
@frosted1030 okie dokie
patrickJMT 5 days ago 25
@patrickJMT LOL
ronmascara 2 days ago
@frosted1030 haha you are cool.
clanorange66 5 days ago
@frosted1030 Did you even read the description or listen to anything he said? This is why we can't have nice things.
Picklwarrior 2 days ago
@frosted1030 looking for god is circular reasoning. Just have faith. I don't think numbers can prove whether god exists.
milkeatscereal 7 hours ago
actually your right... originally the series converged to 0, but after the shifty thing with the parentheses and rewriting the zeros as 1-1 it became an alternating series.... the whole thing is screwed up period.
meisem123 6 days ago
you've just got an additional '1' to the series. :/ plus i dont think i have ever heard of any rule in math about moving the brackets in an equation (or the sum in this case)
-undergrad in aeronautical engineering
simrenism 6 days ago
Patrick, serious question, shouldn't this be a parody of Atheism views concerning the origin of the universe? Most serious theories for Atheism have a beginning, yet they aren't allowed to fall back on super-natural forces?
zMagickz 6 days ago
Cool demonstration. But it is mathematically incorrect. The infinite alternating series does not converge.
Gunner3210 6 days ago
actually.... line 4 is where the error occurs.. 1+0+0
there is a mising -1 to pair with the first ... no matter what... so 0=0 ....
quixoticfallcy 6 days ago
is it because each 1-1 is really a term in the series? So changing the terms to 1+(-1+1)+1 is not the same as the series (1-1)?
megaripcord 1 week ago
Where in the world did that extra 1 come from (When you rewrite your parenthesis.). If those dots mean it's on going, then you can't just shift / include one number from them and exclude the rest in your calculation. It puzzles me T-T
eisenheim46 1 week ago
You can't just take parentheses away. To take parentheses away you have to multiply the group by something else.
AlphaWombat 1 week ago
the problem is that no matter how you rewrite the terms... the series still converges to 0. therefore 0 still equals 0
meisem123 1 week ago
@meisem123 Im just an undergrad in econ but I think it is actually an alternating series and thus is does not converge
megaripcord 1 week ago
#i is the one true god! it's imaginary and it came from nothing! because a square root of a negative does not exist, yet the #i which is the square root of -1 still apperars! it is imaginary and real all at the same time! can't you all see! ALL PRAISE The # I! LOL
ImAlbertOffTask 1 week ago
sorry i am a little bit confused here.if u read the comment can u plz replay.on the 3rd line there was six 1s how come on the 4th line there is seven 1s???
fahim89999 1 week ago 2
@fahim89999 a series is the sum of infinite terms in an repetitive pattern. if you know what infinite means.
OneTwoZeroSix 1 week ago
@OneTwoZeroSix there does not have to be a repetitive pattern, either. just an infinite sum of numbers.
patrickJMT 1 week ago
@fahim89999 I`m wondering the same thing...
TheLost4rmzone 1 week ago
There will be a negative one left at the end which will cancel the one in the beginning.
username6333 1 week ago
I find the Euler's identity e^(-i*pi) much more interesting (and without math errors like the posted example). an irrational number to the power of an imaginary number and another irrational number equaling -1.
skeez86 1 week ago
@PatrickJMT it's cute when you say tada!! :)) haha LOL i'm just thinking if you are quite laughing or smiling when you're doing this video. haha (sorry for the bad english) Ü
rasnapshots 1 week ago
it's cute when you say tada!! :)) haha LOL i'm just thinking if you are quite laughing or smiling when you're doing this video. haha (sorry for the bad english) Ü
rasnapshots 1 week ago
it's cute when you say tada!! :)) haha LOL i'm just thinking if you are quite laughing or smiling when you're doing this video. haha (sorry for the bad english) Ü
rasnapshots 1 week ago
lol he added a one and fotrgot about the negative that goes with it.
tadm123 1 week ago
Ah that's quite clever... however I think the problems lies with the fact the associative law can only really be applied to expressions that aren't an infinite summations such as the one presented; Grandi's series: n=0Σ∞ of (-1)^n.
@pooeyyeoop1 I liked the idea however you can't really define the last expression only because there isn't a last a expression, to define a final expression would be to make the sum finite rather than infinite :)
MrXenitha 1 week ago
The proof is defeated by the fact the that -1 & 1 are added simultaneously in pairs. Thus they immediately cancel each other out. Otherwise the number would not be constant, it would be constantly switching between -1 and 0 forever. As we are just dealing with a single number and not a function this is nonsensical. Changing the brackets (which is legal) does not actually affect how/when the numbers are cancelling.
In my opinion anyways. But what would I know? I'm just an undergrad.
philyking 1 week ago
Haha, this made me laugh... now here we go with creationists using this as a method to prove the existence of god even though they won't understand where this statement comes from..
msaqlain 1 week ago
if we were to number all the () the first time we would have say k () after we erase every () and add the new ones we would in every case put in the -1 from the n () with the 1 from the n+1 () exept the 1 from thefirst () and the -1 from the k ()
understood or did i mess somthing up in my explanation?
healer180 1 week ago
lol!
Deovandski 1 week ago
i had to dislike this, from an ethical standpoint
barneel0verz 1 week ago
youre missing a 1 at the end, theres another 1 if you group the parenthesis like that.... i just proved you wrong
persianplaya2424 1 week ago
Interesting, but yea, it doesn't work because of the order of operations. Lol, those of you who don't get it, you can't just move parenthesis with subtraction unless you change it to adding negative ones.
rufuguru 1 week ago
you just made 1 out of 0 which is what 'GOD' supposedly did... which is proof that YOU ARE GOD!!!
MrJustsayn0 2 weeks ago
Wouldn't there be a (-1) at the VERY end?
Or is that your point, is that you never really get to the end of the equation?
wirthquake 2 weeks ago
LOL, Guido.
MistaB00m 2 weeks ago
I think this would disprove God if it were true. IMHO
sgprailfan 2 weeks ago
I think this would disprove God, IMHO
sgprailfan 2 weeks ago
Shifting the parentheses just changed the order of operations. Restructuring an equation in such a way will yield different results. The left side was true for the former equation, but it became false for the new equation. If this is the basis for anyone's argument, then lol....
PwnagePC 2 weeks ago
0+0+0
(1-1) + (1-1) + (1-1) =0
1-1 + 1-1 + 1-1 =0
1 + (-1+1) + (-1 +1) + -1 =still equals zero. he moved the paranthesis over but for every 0 theres a +1 and a-1 he threw out one of the -1s and got himself an answer of 1 am i right??? if not then i dont get it. i mean it looks really clear and basic that what he did was confuse himself
Addicti0nz1 2 weeks ago
doesn't this break the BEDMAS rule when you get rid of the brackets?
Alive4Metal 2 weeks ago
;)
E90PAT 2 weeks ago
good video, i appreciate the message that you say at the end of this video, math should be something interesting and thought provoking as opposed to dry and boring! its just too bad most of our youth doesnt see it that way.
DouglasMikelas 2 weeks ago
you have six 1s on one part, then the next one you make it 7 1s, that's why it equal to 1. you forgot a -1 at the end, that would make it equal to 0..
There's nothing wrong with math, just dumb people trying to be smart!
khanhishere 2 weeks ago 2
Yeah, this is covered in some advanced calculus texts. Basically (I can't type set anything) we have an infinite series whose nth term is divergent. if the limit of the nth term as n goes to infinity doesn't exist (or it does not equal zero) then the infinite series is divergent. Another way of looking at it is no matter how far you go into the series, and are left with an even number of terms, I can always add one more term to make the partial sum equal to -/+1.
firstatheist 2 weeks ago
To be fair, this doesnt prove the existence of a god, but rather that you can get something from nothing... So pretty much we are still at the same place to where we started (christians say you can't get something from nothing so there has to be a god an athiests saying you can't get god from nothing).
MrKitteh101 2 weeks ago
so in the first line of the proof, the result of the series will always be 0.
in the second line of the proof, the result of the series will always be 0.
in the third series, the result may be 1 or may be 0 (depending on whether it ends with '+1' or '-1).
in the fourth series, the result will always be 1.
in the fifth series, the result will always be 1.
the proof conflates different kinds of series, pretending they're the same kind.
zegovernata 2 weeks ago
@patrickJMT Where does the extra 1 in the fourth step come from?
Cowboys2SB 2 weeks ago
@Cowboys2SB that's exactly what i thought.
GiletteRazorsharp 2 weeks ago
Um, what about that un-grouped negative one allllllllllll the way at the end of your indefinite series? Wouldn't it still be capable of summing with the one at the beginning in order to equal zero?
BeeRockPville 2 weeks ago
...why would you move the parenthesis?
ArenBlut 2 weeks ago
I think this is rather beautifull.
It clearly demonstrates how 'believers' are willing (and even prone to) ignoring(/not getting)
'half' of the story.....
Nevyle 2 weeks ago
You need to count in the other end of the infinite series... the end will then have -1; 1 + 0 + 0 + ... + 0 + 0 + (-1) = 0; 1 - 1 = 0; 0 = 0
Your proof is false because you fail at math.
all4atlantis 2 weeks ago
Maybe this doesn't prove God's existence, but you have to believe in a "higher power" to multiply exponents :) .
Xiricon 2 weeks ago 72
@Xiricon ha, that is one of the best comments : )
patrickJMT 2 weeks ago 17
@patrickJMT
There has to be a god, because how can nothing turn in to something?? Supposedly before everything there was nothing, who caused the big bang if there was nothing there to cause it?? You know??
sovietamerican2 1 week ago
@Xiricon LMAO thats really good
ChamplainCollegeLC 2 weeks ago
The last two lines are wrong
flyingash 2 weeks ago
wrong.
wgsean 2 weeks ago
the 2nd and 3rd steps have 6 numbers and then in the 4th step he added another 1 ...to make 7 numbers so that then in the next step it would equal 1....FAIL
wavsunlimited 2 weeks ago
0=1-1 is the final ans... cause when you move the last +1 to the beginning, you also should consider the existence of a -1 for that +1 as stated in the beginning...
keagleeye 3 weeks ago
Let me avoid being vague:
0= (1-1) = 0.
1 + (1-1) = 1.
Two completely different equations. Ya slipped in the positive one at the beginning of the equation and called it regrouping.... sly little devil you ;)
simplynumba1 3 weeks ago
haha!!! you added an unspecified positive 1 at the beginning of the fifth equation lmao nice try
simplynumba1 3 weeks ago
God created math...wait, actually He created something else before that...LOGIC.............
MysterySultan 3 weeks ago
if a bunny jumps half way, everytime it jumps, to reach a carrot. the bunny will never reach the carrot.
lovetownsend 3 weeks ago
The math is wrong, you added a 1 that shouldn't be there. Each 0 represents a +1 and a -1, you can't just remove 1s as you please.
Look at what Pickleninjai said.
DrMadolite 3 weeks ago
I wish you were my teacher for Maths. I love you
thedarkwoodenbox 3 weeks ago
God took 4 dimensions that didn't exist, time, height, width and length. As they did not exist we denote them 'i'
And he multiplied them together. i x i x i x i
And he got something real.
That's how the world was made. LEWL. So corny but meh. Same as this video.
yamborghini3 3 weeks ago
you're comparing apples to bananas. the formula 1-1 does equal 0, however this is just school house math used to understand value of numbers. In a real world situation; lets use chemistry for example, 1 positively charged oxygen bonds with 2 negatively charged hydrogen ions, the net charge is 0 but there is still an molecule of water. this equation has no application to the real world. It just serves as a tool to keep ignorant Christians like yourselves mesmerized by simple numbers
Dadid10101 3 weeks ago
Guido, I told you not to mess with math cause you always get it wrong!
Vinsu212 3 weeks ago
♥ For the fact that he tried to use an incorrect series of numbers to prove God. Sound just like a Christian. "I have the conclusion, now what evidence do I have to back it up?" As opposed to a scientist/researcher/a-logical-thinking-person/any-person-with-common-sense: "I have the evidence, now what conclusion can I make from it?"
lzrd0113 3 weeks ago
This is wrong for the following reason:
The series 0+0+0+....... is a convergent series, i.e. the limit of partial sums is 0.
The series 1-1+1-1+1-1+...... is an alternating series which is NOT convergent. This is true because any even partial sum will be 0, while any odd partial sum is 1. Thus the limit of the sequence of partial sums is not zero, hence the series does not converge. If a series does not converge, then it is called divergent.
So the error is to write 0+0+0+... = 1-1+1-1+1-1+...
Callum29D 3 weeks ago
i believe god.. but i dont believe this shitty guido ubaldus theory..
MrRaufjrgonzalez 3 weeks ago
you can't just shift the parenthesis around to do what you want. You could make all kinds of crazy shit happen doing stuff like that.
Yabloko91 3 weeks ago
@patrickJMT 0=/=1. All he did was mix up the symbols to give him the desired number.
Its like saying. Hey, why don’t you write me a check for $1. Since its only $1 put in a bunch of 0’s after it. after all a 0 is nothing!
I just turned your $1 into $1000
BaneOfAzrael 3 weeks ago
You teach me math!!!! haha
MrSwedenik 3 weeks ago
Yeah the interesting thing with this approach to me is that it also means that since Satan is evil so must also god be
N8RB8N 3 weeks ago
Uhm, in the 3rd line you added 1.... in both before you started with (1-1) or 1-1 but the 3rd one yo u started with 1 + ___ etc.... did you really think nobody would notice this..?
And no, 0 can not equal 1 because if you multiply 1x2 you get 2 while if you multiply 0x2 you get 0. Hence the same applies that while 1-1 is equivalent to 0, adding a (+1) to that breaks the equation, because 1-1 does not equal 1 nor does 0. i know its obvious but i know some fool wouldve attacked me on this
Lucky466 3 weeks ago
@Metal1998
it's called faith bud.....
thepeopleimakefunof 3 weeks ago
To go from 0 to 1 by introducing 1 into the mix...brilliant! Now to just go from 1 to 0. Matter can not be created or destroyed...but math can...LOL
frankjerroddoyle 3 weeks ago
0 does equal 1!
If you're incredibly stupid and horrible at maths.
stuartneil23 3 weeks ago
cant accept 0=1
believes in talking man in the sky
lol
sklorbit 3 weeks ago
I think Mr. Ubaldus was right, and I'm being absolutely serious. My math skills are limited, but my mind is sharp. If anyone would like to discuss this topic, then feel free to contact me. We could have a civil discussion, or perhaps "nasty," depending on your preference.
Slumpnasty 3 weeks ago
oneness is the main principle is most religions. and is a holy number, because the universe is one. there are separate parts, but really, the universe is not separate. we think everything is different, but when we examine space and time, i think we'll find exactly how much the same we are really are. God or no God, does believing in him make a difference for you?
0thatdudewill0 3 weeks ago
@Metal1998 @bolt586
its called faith bud...
thepeopleimakefunof 3 weeks ago
lets hope we dont reach the -1 in our lifetime....
StarCraftiNator 4 weeks ago 7
thumbs up if you found this arithmetic sequence bit weird
exoticdhillon 4 weeks ago
You're stupid. You added an extra one. And how the heck does that prove anything?
rtmcgaha 4 weeks ago
ahaha you cant even do basic maths, i hope ur diploma makes for good toilet paper.
rahulpower 4 weeks ago
i find it weird that in old stories from back in the day and pictures it seemed common to see gods or forms of gods in a physical sense and now a days its not visibly seen
tcs4duke 1 month ago
This dumbass don't have a clue of the order of operations
rosajortiz 1 month ago
That's a correct and nice equation.
skilel1 1 month ago
Well the problem is that all of them are real patterns BUT the 4th one... so yeah flawed with the random 1
PokeCenter 1 month ago
That is DEFINITELY a convergent series turning into a divergent series.......... come on
JakeOfAllTrades17 1 month ago
lol i lovethese kinds of tricks
a1missle 1 month ago
Two things: 1) Did I miss a day in class where they said it was okay to completely disregard order of operations? If you begin with a parenthetical math problem, once you simplify, you don't get to just shift the parenthesis and create a brand new problem as if the answer to the new problem has anything to do with the previous. Since when did this become okay? Not that it really matters because we're still dealing with addition and subtraction which 2) @Pickleninjai demonstrates quite nicely.
BiggestOfDaddies 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Who's to say God doesn't have a physical form? Doesn't the Bible say God talked to Moses face to face like a man speaketh to another? Aren't humans made in the image of God? Wasn't Jesus also called Emanuel that translates to "God among us". Don't kid yourself, of course God has a body. There is no such thing as immaterial matter.
TheAnonymousify 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Who's to say God doesn't have a physical form? Doesn't the Bible say God talked to Moses face to face like a man speaketh to another? Aren't humans made in the image of God? Wasn't Jesus also called Emanuel that translates to "God among us". Don't kid yourself, of course god has a body. There is no such thing as immaterial matter.
TheAnonymousify 1 month ago
Who's to say God doesn't have a physical form? Doesn't the Bible say God talked to Moses face to face like a man speaketh to another? Aren't humans made in the image of God? Wasn't Jesus also called Emanuel that means translates to "God among us". Don't kid yourself, of course god has a body. There is no such thing as immaterial matter.
TheAnonymousify 1 month ago
This is kindof retarded...
ZeroGLtd 1 month ago
If this was true even though i know its not, wouldn't then this disprove the existence of God because if something was to come from nothing then there would be no use for a God. Even in the theory of evolution something comes from nothing in the fact that the original particles that created the big-bang would have had to come from nothing if there was no God to create them.
Thelvl4Cow 1 month ago
Another problem one can see right away is:
(1-1) = 0
but if in the next line you take out the () and leave 1-1 then now you have two numbers instead of an expression that equals zero. From there you can see Pickleninjai's answer to be right up there.
Ramiromasters 1 month ago
you added an extra 1!
whatnottobe 1 month ago
super gravity my friend...
whatnottobe 1 month ago
To anyone making a big deal on whether or not got does exist through this... The point of god and Christianity is believing when you're not inclined to believe, faith. The minute we actually prove gods existence, the whole point of religion is gone
xxCCBBxx 1 month ago
i motion that this video be renamed "proof that bad math is bad"
rattslayer 1 month ago
You need to have an even number of 1's. By adding an extra 1, you are basically adding +1 and not taking it back out.
But what happened in the 4th line was this:
0 + 0 = 0
1 + (-1 + 1) + (-1 + 1) = 0 <-------- which equals 1 + 0 + 0 = 1
That extra 1 at the beginning is what makes it = 1.
God exists.
TheQwertyopz 1 month ago
@TheQwertyopz
You have a severe case of down syndrome, get it checked out.
aznmonkey104 3 weeks ago
I find that it odd that such an intelligent and theological forefather (Guido), gave birth to the cast of Jersey Shore.
mcovalt 1 month ago
I believe in God, but he's totally right: the math for this so-called "proof" is obviously incorrect.
mutantlobster015 1 month ago 14
@Metal1998
ill pray for you
ProleetGreek 1 month ago
As Pickleninjai said you are not adding the very last -1 in the equation so it would be 0 = 1 + ... -1 and that would be 0 = 0... And still no proof of good.. :) Math major here :)
cureforthemind 1 month ago
Ha that is really cool. By the way thanks for all the videos, it makes studing a lot easier to understand than staring at a book. Your awesome!
macrod15 1 month ago
Um... There's an extra one in the "regrouped parenthesis"..........
ztspenguin 1 month ago
i do find it interesting, but if u think about it, he just proved that 0 = 1, not the existence of God. he just put a Biblical phrase and matched it with math, which most mathematicians would never do. still, highly interesting :D
killerplo101 1 month ago
One name: Kurt Godel.
HaydnM35 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
this is the worst song ever.
strike325 1 month ago
0=1 yep thanks for breaking all computer technology ever
tobofre 1 month ago
you forgot the -1.... wow
suxmyswag 1 month ago
Way to pick a series that doesn't converge.
ATypicalUsername1 1 month ago
WOWW...you're voice was annoying as fuck.
ace1105 1 month ago
when you regrouped the ones you left out a -1
Frydcheezstik 1 month ago 3
if math will ever prove the existence of god (spoiler: it won't), it will be care of Mandelbrot and the discovery that the big bang was a localized event in a sea of infinite matter.
alexglew 1 month ago
@alexglew
i think the big thing is that there was supposed to be no matter. There might have been energy which according to e=mc^2 would allow the creation of the universe. God could only possibly be energy, and if energy created the entire universe those people will say god is everything as they already do.
I don't think there is a god, but that is how i think all the religions could explain their gods.
kitamasu1 4 weeks ago
You left out a -1
PopTartNeko 1 month ago 4
hmm, i think 0 is 0, because, as you can clearly see, it is not 1
DERM0DY 1 month ago 2
does this also make 1=2 2=3 3=4 4=5 5=6
ravi3shekh1 1 month ago
how does this prove god? what the fuck? How is this math also? You just change the numbers and then say 0=1 o.O no, the 1+0+0, etc= 1 o.O
dolerbom 1 month ago
Yet another child left behind
1gamingzone 1 month ago
this is complete bullshit.. If you actually shift the paranthesis then you should get:
1-1+1-1+1-1+1-1 .. -> 1 x (-1+1)
not 1+(-1+1)
?!?!
EmberWaves28 1 month ago
how did Guido get the extra 1? cos in the beginning there is 6 1's there and in the second last statement there are 7? but nice description of maths as "dry, boring..."
WizkidKumar 1 month ago
how did Guido get the extra 1? cos in the beginning there is 6 1's there and in the second last statement there are 7?
WizkidKumar 1 month ago
0 = 1
+1 +1
1 = 2
0 = 2 by substitution
repeat to infinity and you can prove that every number equals every number.. which is obviously NOT the case.
dcallstar51 1 month ago
hahahaha man
1-1+1-1+1-1
u do it ilke this
1+(-1+1) +(-1+1)+(-1+1)
u put possiteve more than nigtive so offcours will be =1 lool
eyadcom2 1 month ago
this doesnt even work, but if it did, what you're saying is that 0=1 and therefore god. alrighty then.
darkmagic42 1 month ago 7
This was a shitty waste of time....in short all you're saying is...."This is an incorrect math equation....i found it interesting"
Toniipp 1 month ago
all i have to say "what God"?
AznCanadien5 1 month ago
lolololollololol
ottopoto185 1 month ago
you cant just remove the parentheses deliberately just like that, please return to your studies.
Likeaperv 1 month ago
This makes absolutely no sense. How can 0=1 possibly prove the existence of God?
metalmike83 1 month ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Lmfao at those retards talking about divering or convering, the 3rd and 4th term are just different, you can't equal on to the other. It has nothing to do with series.
TmTournament2 1 month ago