i want to get really confused...

could someone please tell me where i can find/what the proofs are/or if they even exist! the proofs of:
1+1=1
infinity=a cats tail
and andrew wiles's proof of fermeats last theorem (i.e. that a^x+b^x=c^x is never true if a,b,c&x are all whole numbers greater than two)???

Cut the cat's tail off. Wrap it into a circle. Infinite cat's tail.

x=1, y=1.

x = y

x^2 = y^2

x^2 - y^2 = 0

(x+y)(x-y) = 0

x + y = 0

So 2 = 0, divide by 2:

1=0

So 1+1=1.

The fallacy is that dividing by x-y was a division by 0.

Originally posted by royalchicken
Cut the cat's tail off. Wrap it into a circle. Infinite cat's tail.

x=1, y=1.

x = y

x^2 = y^2

x^2 - y^2 = 0

(x+y)(x-y) = 0

x + y = 0

So 2 = 0, divide by 2:

1=0

So 1+1=1.

The fallacy is that dividing by x-y was a division by 0.

Yes, x+x = 2. But, by that argument, also equal to 0. THus 0 = 2. My fallacious proof is deductively valid, but I disobeyed the rule that one not divide by 0.

Here's something confusing....

Say an international law were passed stipulating that no head of state could inhabit the country of which he or she was in charge. Further, say that the so displaced heads of state inhabited one country, and all heads of state had to live here. Where does its president live?

Not confusing, just Russell's Paradox.

Originally posted by royalchicken
Cut the cat's tail off. Wrap it into a circle. Infinite cat's tail.

x=1, y=1.

x = y

x^2 = y^2

x^2 - y^2 = 0

(x+y)(x-y) = 0

x + y = 0

So 2 = 0, divide by 2:

1=0

So 1+1=1.

The fallacy is that dividing by x-y was a division by 0.

Look at the argument. I am at a loss for what to tell you. Yes, it only aplies to zero, BUT, I just made a logically impeccable argument saying that it also holds true for x=y=1. The only problem was that I INTENTIONALLY divided by zero, to show what happens when one does this. I don;t see why this is so difficult.

Originally posted by royalchicken
Here's something confusing....

Say an international law were passed stipulating that no head of state could inhabit the country of which he or she was in charge. Further, say that the so displaced heads of state inhabited one country, and all heads of state had to live here. Where does its president live?

Not confusing, just Russell's Paradox.

Originally posted by royalchicken
Look at the argument. I am at a loss for what to tell you. Yes, it only aplies to zero, BUT, I just made a logically impeccable argument saying that it also holds true for x=y=1. The only problem was that I INTENTIONALLY divided by zero, to show what happens when one does this. I don;t see why this is so difficult.

SOrry if I came across as a bit obnoxious in my last post. Thanks for your vote of confidence.

excuse my ignorance...but i thought the circumference of a circle was its length and isnt therefore infinate in length...but i dont want to go round in circles(forgive the pun)

Quite right, but a circle is often used to express infinity or "eternity" because of the fact that it is given to being gone round forever.

so a cat's tail isn't actually equal to infinity?...

No...it can just manifest it.

do u know of any other weird proofs?