Proof....For all you who doubted it.
Given: a=b
1: a*a=ab
2: a*a-b*b=ab-b*b
3: (a+b)(a-b)=b(a-b)
4: a+b = b
5: a+a=a
6: 2a=a
Therefore: 1=2
1: a*a=ab
2: a*a-b*b=ab-b*b
3: (a+b)(a-b)=b(a-b)
4: a+b = b
5: a+a=a
6: 2a=a
Therefore: 1=2
QED
There is, of course, a flaw in the proof. And if someone can find it, and post it in the comments, they will get a cookie. But probably not from me. And more than likely, there will be no causal relationship between that person getting a cookie and figuring out the flaw in the proof. But it only stands to reason that the person who figures out the flaw in the proof will also get a cookie at some time in the future.
Best wishes.
There is, of course, a flaw in the proof. And if someone can find it, and post it in the comments, they will get a cookie. But probably not from me. And more than likely, there will be no causal relationship between that person getting a cookie and figuring out the flaw in the proof. But it only stands to reason that the person who figures out the flaw in the proof will also get a cookie at some time in the future.
Best wishes.
There's a flaw in the very first step.
Posted by
Sharon |
4:51 PM
Nope, the first step is just fine. It's the "given." However, the first step is related to the flaw!
Posted by
Dr Kuha |
10:14 PM
the flaw is in the third to the fourth step. a-b=0, you can't divide by zero, since it is undefined.
Therefore, you can't divide either side by (a-b). It works as long as you don't assign any numbers to the variables.
Posted by
Froyd |
4:14 PM
But...
a+a would not equal ab
a+a would equal a+b
ab =axb doesn't it?
Posted by
Sharon |
8:13 PM
uh, sharon, not certain where you are here, but where does he list a+a=ab... I see an a*a=ab, which is a star, which is multiplication for comp sci.
Posted by
Froyd |
9:30 PM
Froyd wins the cookie!... at some point in the future.
You're so smart.
Yeah, and about that a*b issue. I really wanted to make that a little clearer, but it just didn't work out. You know, for (a*a), it would be nice if I knew how to do superscript in HTML,but just didn't feel like looking it up.
Posted by
Dr Kuha |
1:16 PM
Well, I'm really feeling REALLY stupid now...I thought it was a '+'....
So much for the old lady in trifocals... darn it all anyway....
Posted by
Sharon |
9:28 PM