I never meant for "x" to be a variable, and I said it in my original post answering his fake proof. I thought I made it clear that "x" was a constant. Sorry for the confusion, but I definitely do know what I'm talking about, as it seems you do. We're just on two different subjects.
The whole problem with his fake proof was that "x" was being treated as a variable, which it shouldn't be. You see that, right?
Also you didn't answer his fake proof, I did. You're whole ordeal about it being undefined was incorrect because "x" was never a variable, it had a set definition as = 1.
Once again, the problem with his fake proof (and the one I linked you to) is that they treat "x" as a variable, which it isn't. You then started going off on a tangent acting like "x" was meant as a variable, which it wasn't.
Anyways I think that clears things up. =P
