Home
Threads
1=3 right? Is this not correct?

1=3 right? Is this not correct?

Rajni Jain

@rajni-E46Rlm • Oct 25, 2024

Oct 25, 2024

1.8K

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

0 17

Replies

Welcome, guest

Join CrazyEngineers to reply, ask questions, and participate in conversations.

CrazyEngineers powered by Jatra Community Platform

Kaustubh Katdare

@thebigk • Jan 11, 2014

'x = y' , which means Apple = Orange.

0
Anoop Kumar

@anoop-kumar-GDGRCn • Jan 11, 2014

It's actually

3*0 = 0

0
Ramani Aswath

@ramani-VR4O43 • Jan 11, 2014

Anoop KumarIt'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.

0
zaveri

@zaveri-5TD6Sk • Jan 12, 2014

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

0
micheal john

@micheal-john-l1fIn3 • Jan 12, 2014

1=3 is incorrect equation

0
Kaustubh Katdare

@thebigk • Jan 12, 2014

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.

0
micheal john

@micheal-john-l1fIn3 • Jan 12, 2014

Kaustubh KatdareThe 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

0
Ramani Aswath

@ramani-VR4O43 • Jan 14, 2014

micheal johnyes
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.

0
madhu27

@madhu27-Yq7VLh • Jan 17, 2014

step1: x=y
but in step5, 3(x-y)=(x-y)
which means, 3(0)=(0)
the mistake occurs here..😎

0
Shashank Moghe

@shashank-94ap1q • Sep 15, 2014

A.V.RamaniRight.
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.

0
shiwa436

@shiwa436-h94d47 • Sep 16, 2014

The above thing is just like.....

If a=b , b=c then a=c
Implies 2=root(4) , root(4)=-2 then 2=-2

0
Ramani Aswath

@ramani-VR4O43 • Sep 16, 2014

shiwa436The 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)

0
shiwa436

@shiwa436-h94d47 • Sep 16, 2014

#-Link-Snipped-# ramani.. Sir,

A small explanation will convince us, both the things are just outta incomplete application of actual rules....

0
Kaustubh Katdare

@thebigk • Sep 16, 2014

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.

0
Ramani Aswath

@ramani-VR4O43 • Sep 16, 2014

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.

0
Shashank Moghe

@shashank-94ap1q • Sep 17, 2014

Kaustubh KatdareThis 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.

0
uday ultra

@uday-ultra-BDNYAg • Nov 26, 2014

Rajni JainWhere is the mistake in the below explanation?

below the 4th dot

0