Waste less time on Facebook — follow Brilliant.
×

Equals

Can anyone prove "1=2" ? if so HOW ???

Note by Dilip Kumar
4 years, 9 months ago

No vote yet
5 votes

  Easy Math Editor

MarkdownAppears as
*italics* or _italics_ italics
**bold** or __bold__ bold

- bulleted
- list

  • bulleted
  • list

1. numbered
2. list

  1. numbered
  2. list
Note: you must add a full line of space before and after lists for them to show up correctly
paragraph 1

paragraph 2

paragraph 1

paragraph 2

[example link](https://brilliant.org)example link
> This is a quote
This is a quote
    # I indented these lines
    # 4 spaces, and now they show
    # up as a code block.

    print "hello world"
# I indented these lines
# 4 spaces, and now they show
# up as a code block.

print "hello world"
MathAppears as
Remember to wrap math in \( ... \) or \[ ... \] to ensure proper formatting.
2 \times 3 \( 2 \times 3 \)
2^{34} \( 2^{34} \)
a_{i-1} \( a_{i-1} \)
\frac{2}{3} \( \frac{2}{3} \)
\sqrt{2} \( \sqrt{2} \)
\sum_{i=1}^3 \( \sum_{i=1}^3 \)
\sin \theta \( \sin \theta \)
\boxed{123} \( \boxed{123} \)

Comments

Sort by:

Top Newest

It is impossible. This can be "proven" with a fallacious "proof". You could also make your own "mathematics" wherein "1=2" holds. However, that "mathematics" would be inconsistent with the conventional mathematics.

Ramon Vicente Marquez - 4 years, 9 months ago

Log in to reply

An example of a kind of mathematics where \( 1 = 2 \) holds, would be looking at the fractional part of a real number (sometimes also known as working modulo 1).

Recall that \( \lfloor x \rfloor \) is the greatest integer function, which gives you the integer part of a number. The fractional part of a (positive) real number is given by \( \{ x \} = x - \lfloor x - \rfloor \). You should be able to verify that the basic arithmetic operations still hold, and is consistent in the equivalence class.

This was popular in the past especially when logarithms were used to multiply large numbers, and looking at the fractional part of the logarithm gives you the initial starting digits. With the invention of calculators, it has fallen out of use and is now mainly used by computers to determine rounding.

Calvin Lin Staff - 4 years, 9 months ago

Log in to reply

It is provable..but the reason why the proof breaks down is very obvious, basic and this proof is foolish :P The proof goes like this. we know that \((a^2 -b^2)\)= \((a + b)(a - b)\) let us consider \(a = b\) we have \((a^2 - a^2)\) = \((a + a)(a - a)\) [This is where everything gets foolish]now, \(a(a - a)\) = \((a + a)(a - a)\) [Ridiculous] cancelling \((a - a)\) on both sides, we are left with \(a\) = \(a + a\) or \(a = 2a\) now cancelling \(a\) on both sides, 1 = 2 :P

Nishanth Hegde - 4 years, 9 months ago

Log in to reply

The reason that this fails is because we can't divide by \(a - a = 0\).

Zi Song Yeoh - 4 years, 9 months ago

Log in to reply

yeah..

Nishanth Hegde - 4 years, 9 months ago

Log in to reply

We can "Proof that 0 = 1" ( :) ) then add \(1\) for both sides to obtain \(1 = 2\).

Zi Song Yeoh - 4 years, 9 months ago

Log in to reply

Dude, stop trying to spew fraudulent material. It's not even a proper proof.

Tim Ye - 4 years, 9 months ago

Log in to reply

Chill out everybody. I'm pretty sure he was just making a joke. Hence the emoticon in the parentheses.

Peter Taylor Staff - 4 years, 9 months ago

Log in to reply

No dude, read that proof properly. it says it is incorrect. you're asked to find out where the mistake is...

Dilip Kumar - 4 years, 9 months ago

Log in to reply

I know.

Zi Song Yeoh - 4 years, 9 months ago

Log in to reply

@Zi Song Yeoh then

Sri Krishna Priya Dhulipala - 4 years, 9 months ago

Log in to reply

@Sri Krishna Priya Dhulipala It is impossible to prove that \(1 = 2\) with a correct proof.

Zi Song Yeoh - 4 years, 9 months ago

Log in to reply

@Zi Song Yeoh no, it can be proved correctly, read the first comment. It sums up the situation pretty nicely.

Harshit Kapur - 4 years, 9 months ago

Log in to reply

Zi Song,the method used to obtain that proof wouldn't work for 1 and 2

Tan Li Xuan - 4 years, 9 months ago

Log in to reply

×

Problem Loading...

Note Loading...

Set Loading...