Bending the rules of math
- Thread starter CivicFan
- Start date
- Status
Quote:
Therefore
2 = 1
Yeah, right. Wrong conclusion.
The value in parentheses = 0.
2X(axa - axb) = 1x(axa - axb) is the same as 2x0 = 1x0, therefore 0 = 0.
Therefore
2 = 1
Yeah, right. Wrong conclusion.
The value in parentheses = 0.
2X(axa - axb) = 1x(axa - axb) is the same as 2x0 = 1x0, therefore 0 = 0.
How exactly is saying that 2x0 = 1x0 the same as saying that 2 = 1?
Edit: Dangit, Pete beat me to the punch.
Edit: Dangit, Pete beat me to the punch.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Drew99GT
Originally Posted By: CivicFan
If
a = b
Then
axa = axb
axa + axa = axa + axb
axa + axa - 2axb = axa + axb - 2axb
2axa - 2axb = axa - axb
2X(axa - axb) = 1x(axa - axb)
Therefore
2 = 1
That is government math.
BINGO! John--Las Vegas.
Originally Posted By: CivicFan
If
a = b
Then
axa = axb
axa + axa = axa + axb
axa + axa - 2axb = axa + axb - 2axb
2axa - 2axb = axa - axb
2X(axa - axb) = 1x(axa - axb)
Therefore
2 = 1
That is government math.
BINGO! John--Las Vegas.
JHZR2
Staff member
lots of folks don't understand math. I think theyve dumbed it down to the point that most kids in school dont get a real, rigorous mathematics treatment.
Whenever you see a problem that claims that 2=1 or 1=0 or anything impossible, there's usually a division by zero somewhere along the way
I can't see Drew99Gt's post. (except in your quote)
Deleted that quickly for a govt reference?
Deleted that quickly for a govt reference?
Originally Posted By: PeteTheFarmer
Whenever you see a problem that claims that 2=1 or 1=0 or anything impossible, there's usually a division by zero somewhere along the way
And that is just what was done to "make it work"
To go from
2X(axa - axb) = 1x(axa - axb)
to
2 = 1
each side of the equation must divide by (axa - axb) which is division by zero given what is presented before.
Whenever you see a problem that claims that 2=1 or 1=0 or anything impossible, there's usually a division by zero somewhere along the way
And that is just what was done to "make it work"
To go from
2X(axa - axb) = 1x(axa - axb)
to
2 = 1
each side of the equation must divide by (axa - axb) which is division by zero given what is presented before.
Originally Posted By: CivicFan
If
a = b
Then
axa = axb
axa + axa = axa + axb
axa + axa - 2axb = axa + axb - 2axb
2axa - 2axb = axa - axb
2X(axa - axb) = 1x(axa - axb)
Therefore
2 = 1
Your steps are wrong, you mis-carried a term in your simplification/obfuscation...and you need to get rid of all the "x"...this is algebra, the "x" is implicit...so, it should read:
a = b
Then
multiplying by a
aa = ab
adding the term aa to both sides
aa + aa = aa + ab
subtracting 2ab from both sides
aa + aa - 2ab = aa + ab - 2ab
so far, so good, but now you combine terms:
2aa - 2ab = aa - ab
and you factor
2(aa - ab) = 1(aa - ab)
or, since we know aa = ab from above
2x(0) = 1x(0) which is true, both sides of the equation are zero.
But, you can't divide both sides by zero!
So, it does not follw that 2=1...the only thing you've proved is that two different numbers times zero equal zero...once you have 0=0 it becomes meaningless at that point...
Which is what the other guys said while I was away from the computer...but hey, I went step by step...
Cheers,
If
a = b
Then
axa = axb
axa + axa = axa + axb
axa + axa - 2axb = axa + axb - 2axb
2axa - 2axb = axa - axb
2X(axa - axb) = 1x(axa - axb)
Therefore
2 = 1
Your steps are wrong, you mis-carried a term in your simplification/obfuscation...and you need to get rid of all the "x"...this is algebra, the "x" is implicit...so, it should read:
a = b
Then
multiplying by a
aa = ab
adding the term aa to both sides
aa + aa = aa + ab
subtracting 2ab from both sides
aa + aa - 2ab = aa + ab - 2ab
so far, so good, but now you combine terms:
2aa - 2ab = aa - ab
and you factor
2(aa - ab) = 1(aa - ab)
or, since we know aa = ab from above
2x(0) = 1x(0) which is true, both sides of the equation are zero.
But, you can't divide both sides by zero!
So, it does not follw that 2=1...the only thing you've proved is that two different numbers times zero equal zero...once you have 0=0 it becomes meaningless at that point...
Which is what the other guys said while I was away from the computer...but hey, I went step by step...
Cheers,
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Kuato
Here's a proof that works for you:
If Women = Time + Money
and Time is Money
Then Women = Money^2
The only number for which this works is if Money = 2.
That would mean that the woman in question is twice as good as a $2 woman.
Now who's poking the hornet's nest?
Here's a proof that works for you:
If Women = Time + Money
and Time is Money
Then Women = Money^2
The only number for which this works is if Money = 2.
That would mean that the woman in question is twice as good as a $2 woman.
Now who's poking the hornet's nest?
So, we took the bait?
Division by 0 is undefined. A more accurate way of putting it. which also means you can't do it...
Originally Posted By: Astro14
So, we took the bait?
Seems so. I got a giggle out of it.
So, we took the bait?
Seems so. I got a giggle out of it.
Originally Posted By: JHZR2
lots of folks don't understand math. I think theyve dumbed it down to the point that most kids in school dont get a real, rigorous mathematics treatment.
This isn't a math fail.
This is a logic fail.
But, that's OK! You could just state:
Lots of folks don't understand logic.
or
Lot's of folks don't think.
Any of these would be acceptable.
lots of folks don't understand math. I think theyve dumbed it down to the point that most kids in school dont get a real, rigorous mathematics treatment.
This isn't a math fail.
This is a logic fail.
But, that's OK! You could just state:
Lots of folks don't understand logic.
or
Lot's of folks don't think.
Any of these would be acceptable.
That's lawyer's math.
I agree - most lawyers wouldn't make a living if most people could understand logic and do math.
- Status
