CrazyEngineers
CrazyEngineers
Howdy guest!
Dear guest, you must be logged-in to participate on CrazyEngineers. We would love to have you as a member of our community. Consider creating an account or login.
Replies

  • Kaustubh Katdare

    Administrator • Jan 11, 2014

    'x = y' , which means Apple = Orange.
    Are you sure? This action cannot be undone.
    Cancel

  • Anoop Kumar

    Member • Jan 11, 2014

    It's actually

    3*0 = 0
    Are you sure? This action cannot be undone.
    Cancel

  • Ramani Aswath

    Member • Jan 11, 2014

    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.
    Are you sure? This action cannot be undone.
    Cancel

  • zaveri

    Member • 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
    Are you sure? This action cannot be undone.
    Cancel

  • micheal john

    Member • Jan 12, 2014

    1=3 is incorrect equation
    Are you sure? This action cannot be undone.
    Cancel

  • Kaustubh Katdare

    Administrator • 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.
    Are you sure? This action cannot be undone.
    Cancel

  • micheal john

    Member • Jan 12, 2014

    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
    Are you sure? This action cannot be undone.
    Cancel

  • Ramani Aswath

    Member • Jan 14, 2014

    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.
    Are you sure? This action cannot be undone.
    Cancel

  • madhu27

    Member • Jan 17, 2014

    step1: x=y
    but in step5, 3(x-y)=(x-y)
    which means, 3(0)=(0)
    the mistake occurs here..😎
    Are you sure? This action cannot be undone.
    Cancel

  • Shashank Moghe

    Member • Sep 15, 2014

    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.
    Are you sure? This action cannot be undone.
    Cancel

  • shiwa436

    Member • 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
    Are you sure? This action cannot be undone.
    Cancel

  • Ramani Aswath

    Member • Sep 16, 2014

    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)
    Are you sure? This action cannot be undone.
    Cancel

  • shiwa436

    Member • Sep 16, 2014

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

    A small explanation will convince us, both the things are just outta incomplete application of actual rules....
    Are you sure? This action cannot be undone.
    Cancel

  • Kaustubh Katdare

    Administrator • 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.
    Are you sure? This action cannot be undone.
    Cancel

  • Ramani Aswath

    Member • 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.
    Are you sure? This action cannot be undone.
    Cancel

  • Shashank Moghe

    Member • Sep 17, 2014

    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.
    Are you sure? This action cannot be undone.
    Cancel

  • uday ultra

    Member • Nov 26, 2014

    Rajni Jain
    Where is the mistake in the below explanation?
    1=3​
    below the 4th dot
    Are you sure? This action cannot be undone.
    Cancel
Home Channels Search Login Register