A
Anonymous01/25/26, 02:09No.16898618I found a contradiction that breaks all the rules of mathematics.
The expression 1(1/3)6 demonstrates that the associative property is not a universal law, but a convention dependent on notation.Depending on the direction of evaluation, the result diverges:Left-to-Right: The product (1 * 1/3) * 6 results in 8. Right-to-Left: Evaluating (1/3 * 6) first leaves the juxtaposition 1(2). In a system that allows mixed-number notation, this collapses into 7.33...The contradiction 8 = 7.33 is irreducible unless you put an addition operator (+) that is not present in the original string. If the notation allows two valid interpretations, the system is inconsistent.Full formal proof and DOI: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.18364151
Se que esto despertara millones de personas I know this will trigger millions of people into launching Ad Hominem attacks—claiming I need a psychiatrist, that this is AI slop, AI psychosis, or some other form of delusion—but I feel it is my duty to inform you of this.
23
Replies
A
Anon01/25/26, 02:25No.16898631
>The product (1 * 1/3) * 6 results in 8
No.
1*1/3=1/3
1/3*6=2
2 is the final product>Evaluating (1/3 * 6) first leaves the juxtaposition 1(2).
And 1*2=2
2 is the final product.>In a system that allows mixed-number notation, this collapses into 7.33...
Elaborate more on this, please. How did you come to this conclusion, step-by-step?
Are you conflating mixed number notation with multiplcation? Because then that's just you confusing yourself with ambiguous notation.>I know this will trigger millions of people into launching Ad Hominem attacks—claiming I need a psychiatrist, that this is AI slop, AI psychosis, or some other form of delusion
No. You're just making simple math errors.That said, to your original point:
>the associative property is not a universal law, but a convention dependent on notation.
I don't know of a case where associative property is actually broken. But nothing in math says it absolutely must hold true in all mathematical systems. The commutative property does not hold true for orthogonal numbers, for example. This isn't math "breaking." It's just that some properties do not apply to some systems.
A
Anon01/25/26, 02:28No.16898632
>I don't know of a case where associative property is actually broken
Nvm, I'm retard.
Yeah, there's lots of non-associative systems:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-associative_algebra
A
Anon01/25/26, 07:48No.16898763
>the associative property is not a universal law
I stopped reading here because nobody claimed otherwise. See subtraction.
A
Anon01/25/26, 11:06No.16898843
>the result diverges:Left-to-Right: The product (1 * 1/3) * 6 results in 8.
how the fuck are you getting 8?
A
Anon01/25/26, 13:10No.16898886
it is a pretty funny paper, yeah
A
Anon01/25/26, 13:56No.16898898
lmao
well played, this paper is peak
A
Anon01/25/26, 14:26No.16898912
Looks like the author also invented a time machine half a year ago.
A
Anon01/27/26, 03:53No.16899976
Let this be a lesson to you all that we don't bully people that refuse to conform to standard notation enough. All that time humoring dipshits that think multiplication by juxtaposition takes priority over multiplication and now you've got assholes trying to make mixed numbers a thing.
A
Anon01/28/26, 07:15No.16900642
where did you get 8 from
[eqn]\text{digits} \frac{\text{digits}}{\text{digits}} = \text{digits} + \frac{\text{digits}}{\text{digits}}[/eqn]
[eqn] 1 \frac13 = 1 + \frac13 [/eqn]
it only works like multiplication when it’s something more complex than just digits
A
Anon01/28/26, 07:58No.16900647
What the fuck is a mixed number?