(December 20, 2015 at 1:54 am)Tiberius Wrote:(December 19, 2015 at 9:55 pm)pool Wrote: That algebra does depend on x*0=0Tell me, and I don't mean this to come across as mean, but how much experience with algebra do you have? The algebra I created was based on the pattern you stated, and it can contain multiplication of any numbers of the R.H.S provided there is no multiplication of 0, because that's what we are trying to show.
Because:
x * y = x + ((x - 1) * y) + (y - x)
where x=1 and y=-1
You simply cannot show that x*0=x using an algebra that has * on the R.H.S
If x is 0 and y is 1, the algebra comes to: 0 * 1 = 0 + (-1 * 1) + (1 - 0)
The thing we are trying to work out is on the L.H.S. It does not appear in any form on the R.H.S, so the algebra is valid. I believe you are getting confused over what we are trying to work out. We aren't trying to prove how multiplication works, you accept that 1*1 = 1, that 5*5 = 25. What we are trying to work out what 0 * 1 is, using the pattern that you generated. My point was that you used the pattern wrong, you applied it incorrectly when it came to doing multiplication with 0, because you completely missed the (-1 * 1) part.
As I've also demonstrated, the algebra is correct because the R.H.S simplifies to exactly the L.H.S. Once you simplify your pattern, you get x * y. It's great, the pattern you detected actually exists, but you just applied it incorrectly in the final instance.
Quote:You've stated in your post that 1*1 = 1+ 0 and 0*1 =+ 1. To simplify, 1*1 = 1, and 0*1=1
So if both these statements equal 1, we can substitute them to get:
1*1 = 0*1
1 = 1
Now divide each side by 1:
1 = 1
I have 0 experience with any form of math. Teeeeeeehee
You win this round.