It's simple enough, x=a/h. See, no numbers needed.

That doesn't solve the actual equation. I say that x cannot equal a divided by h. Prove me wrong.

So when you said you'd disproved my sig in this thread, what you actually meant was you'd decided you'd completely failed and just thought you'd drag me back in to tell you again? Well, ok, if that's what floats your boat...

x = a/h was defined. If you don't believe that it's the correct definition, then fine, you can do what you were talking about and test it with numbers. If the relationship was arrived at through pure theoretical derivation, however, that doesn't make it invalid. Maybe x = a/h is the result of a proof that cannot be refuted theoretically. It's still maths. You're confusing pure maths with applied maths, or maths with physics. You're also confusing proving me wrong with being an utter failure.