Sorry I don't understand math ;-;
Otherwise I would happily say- "Oh, ___is the smallest!"
Unfortunately, ____ equals my sad non-math skills :,)
Lol don't worry there isn't actually a smallest number
there is no mathematical basis for anything I am saying
0 isn't a positive number tho.
Well there is no smallest positive number
I love how y'all just completely accepted the fact that I literally proved 1 was the biggest number
Yeah, I know that at least ;u;
Because technically, just like you could keep going forwards, you could keep going backwards as well...
But say n is the smallest possible integer.
n must be smaller than one, the largest possible integer.
So n is less than or equal to 1.
And n! is less than or equal to 1!, right?
But 0! is equal to 1. And 1! is 1 as well.
So is zero also the biggest integer possible?
n doesn't have to be less than 1, it can be exactly 1. So you just proved the smallest positive rational number is 1.
So 1 is the biggest and smallest number?
But that would make 1 the smallest and largest number. Is that even rationally possible?
@Gilbert189 beat me too it ;-;
Yes, that is correct.
I love that you graciously accept that 1 is the largest number, but the minute I claim 1 is the smallest number there are problems XD
Well, maybe we shouldn't go along with it then. Because I was about to type that there was nothing that you said that went against one being the largest number, because technically two, and three, and four, are of larger value.
And technically, it can't be the smallest either, because of that ^^up there. So everything I'm saying is contradicting itself. So it's wrong, and right at the same thing.
Yeah, but I proved 1 is the biggest number. Where's the flaw in my proof?
Where did you prove one is the biggest number? Isn't the biggest number infinity or something? Sorry I'm horrible with numbers lol
Let n be the largest positive integer. Since n≥1, multiplying both sides by n implies that n2≥n. But since n is the biggest positive integer, it is also true that n2≤n. It follows that n2=n. Dividing both sides by n implies that n=1.
It's not right, but where is the flaw?
I gotta reread your posts .H.
Then, we figured out that 1 is also the smallest number.
Thanks! I totally understand everything you guys said XD
what if you used a different equation? Say, if you multiplied n in the last step of the equation.
Then we would prove n^3=n^2