1=3 right? Is this not correct?

Where is the mistake in the below explanation?
1=3

Replies

  • Kaustubh Katdare
    Kaustubh Katdare
    'x = y' , which means Apple = Orange.
  • Anoop Kumar
    Anoop Kumar
    It's actually

    3*0 = 0
  • Ramani Aswath
    Ramani Aswath
    Anoop Kumar
    It's actually 3*0 = 0
    Right.
    The last but one step can be elaborated as 3 x 0 = 1 x 0. The fallacy is that dividing both sides by zero gives 3 = 1.
    Dividing by zero is an invalid operation.
  • zaveri
    zaveri
    Check step number 5:

    it goes as 3X=X = 3Y = Y

    is this supposed to be 3X-X = 3Y - Y ?

    if it is, then the mistake occurs at step number 6.

    Step number 6 would correctly go as : 3X - 3Y = Y - X
  • micheal john
    micheal john
    1=3 is incorrect equation
  • Kaustubh Katdare
    Kaustubh Katdare
    The first line itself is wrong. When you say, 'x=y', which means 'x' and 'y' are one and the same thing. So it can be extended to any level and prove anything equal to anything.
  • micheal john
    micheal john
    Kaustubh Katdare
    The first line itself is wrong. When you say, 'x=y', which means 'x' and 'y' are one and the same thing. So it can be extended to any level and prove anything equal to anything.
    yes
  • Ramani Aswath
    Ramani Aswath
    micheal john
    yes
    Not really. X can be the number of girls in a class while y can be the number of desks in the class. The real issue is that division by zero is not a defined mathematical operation. The whole thing is set up as a confusing buzz, hiding the wrong operation.
  • madhu27
    madhu27
    step1: x=y
    but in step5, 3(x-y)=(x-y)
    which means, 3(0)=(0)
    the mistake occurs here..😎
  • Shashank Moghe
    Shashank Moghe
    A.V.Ramani
    Right.
    The last but one step can be elaborated as 3 x 0 = 1 x 0. The fallacy is that dividing both sides by zero gives 3 = 1.
    Dividing by zero is an invalid operation.

    Sir nailed it. Simple and elegant explanation.
  • shiwa436
    shiwa436
    The above thing is just like.....

    If a=b , b=c then a=c
    Implies 2=root(4) , root(4)=-2 then 2=-2
  • Ramani Aswath
    Ramani Aswath
    shiwa436
    The above thing is just like.....

    If a=b , b=c then a=c
    Implies 2=root(4) , root(4)=-2 then 2=-2
    Not really.
    In maths there is an equality and there is an identical equality.
    Both +2 and -2 are roota of 4.
    So 2 = Sqrt(4) does not mean 2 is identically equal to Sqrt(4)
  • shiwa436
    shiwa436
    #-Link-Snipped-# ramani.. Sir,

    A small explanation will convince us, both the things are just outta incomplete application of actual rules....
  • Kaustubh Katdare
    Kaustubh Katdare
    This is the simplest explanation:

    The 'proof' starts by assuming 'X' = 'Y'. Since X and Y aren't defined -> you should be able to prove almost anything; because it's based on 'assumption' that X = Y.
  • Ramani Aswath
    Ramani Aswath
    shiwa436
    #-Link-Snipped-# ramani.. Sir,

    A small explanation will convince us, both the things are just outta incomplete application of actual rules....
    Sqrt(4) = +/- 2
    Using Sqrt(4) to mean +2 in one part of the argument and -2 in another part leads to an inconsistency beca

    The original problem has a different issue. That argument uses division by zero, which is not permitted in maths.
  • Shashank Moghe
    Shashank Moghe
    Kaustubh Katdare
    This is the simplest explanation:

    The 'proof' starts by assuming 'X' = 'Y'. Since X and Y aren't defined -> you should be able to prove almost anything; because it's based on 'assumption' that X = Y.
    The problem is not the assumption. Mathematics gives us the full liberty to assume anything that fits the rules (and here assuming two variables are equal is not against any). The problem is the step (tricky step) which is so common to many such "proofs" which claim flabbergasting results to be true. This tricky step is intentionally introduced because it skips the attention of most amateur proof readers: and the step is called "division by zero", which is not defined.
  • uday ultra
    uday ultra
    Rajni Jain
    Where is the mistake in the below explanation?
    1=3
    below the 4th dot

You are reading an archived discussion.

Related Posts

1. Go to start button, click on all programs. 2. Click on Accessories and right click on CMD and select the option "Run as Administrator" 3. In cmd type:- SLMGR...
Do you have any clue about human brain capacity; if not read this... Per a scientific study, The human brain has an estimated storage capacity of 256 exabytes (or 256...
hiiiiiii frnds am K ashish i hail form a place called warangal.... i am perceiving my graduation in home town it self from CJITS department of mechanical engineering...... my hobbies...
sir, i am final year mechanical, we are looking for project...i'm more intrested in automobiles...so we likely to do a project in ashok leyland...but we don't know how to approach...
Please suggest me the latest seminar Ideas for ECE please the latest once ...