sgrajan

01-03-2004, 08:21 PM

One of my friend wants me to prove 3=2;

is it possible??

is it possible??

View Full Version : Prove 3=2

sgrajan

01-03-2004, 08:21 PM

One of my friend wants me to prove 3=2;

is it possible??

is it possible??

vasan

01-03-2004, 08:40 PM

Sure..

Most of the variations in this theme comes from

0 = 0 !!

To prove,

3 * 0 = 2 * 0 (because they are equal to zero!)

Now divide both sides by 0 and you end up with

3 = 2

Now go figure where the fallacy is !!

Most of the variations in this theme comes from

0 = 0 !!

To prove,

3 * 0 = 2 * 0 (because they are equal to zero!)

Now divide both sides by 0 and you end up with

3 = 2

Now go figure where the fallacy is !!

Shy

01-04-2004, 01:18 AM

Got it from net.. but konjam if we think abt basic equations and used them we can find it ourselves..

anyway here u go..

(1) 3 a - 2 a = a

(2) a = b + c

Now, by inserting (2) into (1), we get:

(3) 3 a - 2 a = 3 ( b + c ) - 2 ( b + c )

After multiplication, eq. (3) yields:

(4)3 a - 2 a = 3 b + 3 c - 2 b - 2 c

Now let us clarify the structure of eq. (4) by shifting all terms including the number 3 on the left side, and all terms including the number 2 on the right side:

(5) 3 a - 3 b - 3c = 2 a - 2 b - 2 c

Eq. (5) may be written even more clearly by the use of brackets:

(6)3 ( a - b - c ) = 2 ( a - b - c )

Now it is very easy to see, that indeed

3 = 2

:) Shy

anyway here u go..

(1) 3 a - 2 a = a

(2) a = b + c

Now, by inserting (2) into (1), we get:

(3) 3 a - 2 a = 3 ( b + c ) - 2 ( b + c )

After multiplication, eq. (3) yields:

(4)3 a - 2 a = 3 b + 3 c - 2 b - 2 c

Now let us clarify the structure of eq. (4) by shifting all terms including the number 3 on the left side, and all terms including the number 2 on the right side:

(5) 3 a - 3 b - 3c = 2 a - 2 b - 2 c

Eq. (5) may be written even more clearly by the use of brackets:

(6)3 ( a - b - c ) = 2 ( a - b - c )

Now it is very easy to see, that indeed

3 = 2

:) Shy

sabeshan

01-04-2004, 04:00 AM

To prove,

3 * 0 = 2 * 0 (because they are equal to zero!)

Now divide both sides by 0 and you end up with

3 = 2

vasan, basic maths teaches us that 0 divided by 0 is meaningless or more technically indeterminate.. i will say why... so 0/0 is NOT 1 and therefore 3*0 = 2*0 does NOT reduce to 3=2

now i will say why 0/0 is not 1. see the following:

5*0=0

25.34*0=0

-256*0=0

0*0=0

now therefore from the above equations, 0/0 can be any of the above numbers (in fact ANY number we know from 1^-100 to 1^100; just an example) so it is therefore indeterminate.

(6)3 ( a - b - c ) = 2 ( a - b - c )

Now it is very easy to see, that indeed

3 = 2

shy ivlo kashta pattu sollirukkeenga but i have to spoil ur fun... first of all the equation

3(a-b-c) = 2(a-b-c) cannot be reduced to 3 = 2 as a-b-c = 0 (remember a = b+c?) so u cannot escape simply by using symbols instead of numbers. ultimately it all boils down to the same faulty logic... mathematics is a precise science... no amount of hoodwinking can disprove well-laid out theories which have been QED.

3 * 0 = 2 * 0 (because they are equal to zero!)

Now divide both sides by 0 and you end up with

3 = 2

vasan, basic maths teaches us that 0 divided by 0 is meaningless or more technically indeterminate.. i will say why... so 0/0 is NOT 1 and therefore 3*0 = 2*0 does NOT reduce to 3=2

now i will say why 0/0 is not 1. see the following:

5*0=0

25.34*0=0

-256*0=0

0*0=0

now therefore from the above equations, 0/0 can be any of the above numbers (in fact ANY number we know from 1^-100 to 1^100; just an example) so it is therefore indeterminate.

(6)3 ( a - b - c ) = 2 ( a - b - c )

Now it is very easy to see, that indeed

3 = 2

shy ivlo kashta pattu sollirukkeenga but i have to spoil ur fun... first of all the equation

3(a-b-c) = 2(a-b-c) cannot be reduced to 3 = 2 as a-b-c = 0 (remember a = b+c?) so u cannot escape simply by using symbols instead of numbers. ultimately it all boils down to the same faulty logic... mathematics is a precise science... no amount of hoodwinking can disprove well-laid out theories which have been QED.

vasan

01-05-2004, 07:30 PM

To prove,

3 * 0 = 2 * 0 (because they are equal to zero!)

Now divide both sides by 0 and you end up with

3 = 2

vasan, basic maths teaches us that 0 divided by 0 is meaningless or more technically indeterminate.. i will say why... so 0/0 is NOT 1 and therefore 3*0 = 2*0 does NOT reduce to 3=2

now i will say why 0/0 is not 1. see the following:

5*0=0

25.34*0=0

-256*0=0

0*0=0

now therefore from the above equations, 0/0 can be any of the above numbers (in fact ANY number we know from 1^-100 to 1^100; just an example) so it is therefore indeterminate.

(6)3 ( a - b - c ) = 2 ( a - b - c )

Now it is very easy to see, that indeed

3 = 2

shy ivlo kashta pattu sollirukkeenga but i have to spoil ur fun... first of all the equation

3(a-b-c) = 2(a-b-c) cannot be reduced to 3 = 2 as a-b-c = 0 (remember a = b+c?) so u cannot escape simply by using symbols instead of numbers. ultimately it all boils down to the same faulty logic... mathematics is a precise science... no amount of hoodwinking can disprove well-laid out theories which have been QED.

Sabastiean... !!

Correct- bro... I never said that is correct. All I said was each of the argument centers finally on dividing zero by zero... As you have pointed out, Shy's proof also is finally that...

And the fallacy is that you can't divide zero by zero since its indeterminate...

3 * 0 = 2 * 0 (because they are equal to zero!)

Now divide both sides by 0 and you end up with

3 = 2

vasan, basic maths teaches us that 0 divided by 0 is meaningless or more technically indeterminate.. i will say why... so 0/0 is NOT 1 and therefore 3*0 = 2*0 does NOT reduce to 3=2

now i will say why 0/0 is not 1. see the following:

5*0=0

25.34*0=0

-256*0=0

0*0=0

now therefore from the above equations, 0/0 can be any of the above numbers (in fact ANY number we know from 1^-100 to 1^100; just an example) so it is therefore indeterminate.

(6)3 ( a - b - c ) = 2 ( a - b - c )

Now it is very easy to see, that indeed

3 = 2

shy ivlo kashta pattu sollirukkeenga but i have to spoil ur fun... first of all the equation

3(a-b-c) = 2(a-b-c) cannot be reduced to 3 = 2 as a-b-c = 0 (remember a = b+c?) so u cannot escape simply by using symbols instead of numbers. ultimately it all boils down to the same faulty logic... mathematics is a precise science... no amount of hoodwinking can disprove well-laid out theories which have been QED.

Sabastiean... !!

Correct- bro... I never said that is correct. All I said was each of the argument centers finally on dividing zero by zero... As you have pointed out, Shy's proof also is finally that...

And the fallacy is that you can't divide zero by zero since its indeterminate...

podanga

01-08-2004, 07:09 PM

sabeshan and vasan,

you guys are absolutely right!! there is no way of proving 3=2 without sneaking in the illegal divide by zero.

here is another approach to the wrong theory:

x=y

x^2=xy

x^-y^2=xy-y^2

(x+y)(x-y)=y(x-y) --> this is where I sneak-in

(x+y)=y

y+y=y

2y=y

2=1

well not close to answer but..

2+1 = 1+1

3=2.. hence falsely proved..;)

you guys are absolutely right!! there is no way of proving 3=2 without sneaking in the illegal divide by zero.

here is another approach to the wrong theory:

x=y

x^2=xy

x^-y^2=xy-y^2

(x+y)(x-y)=y(x-y) --> this is where I sneak-in

(x+y)=y

y+y=y

2y=y

2=1

well not close to answer but..

2+1 = 1+1

3=2.. hence falsely proved..;)

sri_gan

01-08-2004, 07:27 PM

Podanga,

Vanga.....

x^-y^2=xy-y^2

I don't understand what expression is the above.

Please explain.

Vanga.....

x^-y^2=xy-y^2

I don't understand what expression is the above.

Please explain.

gsatnan

01-08-2004, 07:42 PM

he forgot to add 2 its actullay X^2-y^2=xy - y^2

Shy

01-08-2004, 07:49 PM

Sri_gan,

"Shy wrote" ellai, "podanga" wrote.

Enna da thappu pannuvaennu paarthutu irukeengala?. Thappa vaera thappu solreenga.

Shy

"Shy wrote" ellai, "podanga" wrote.

Enna da thappu pannuvaennu paarthutu irukeengala?. Thappa vaera thappu solreenga.

Shy

sri_gan

01-08-2004, 08:01 PM

Sri_gan,

"Shy wrote" ellai, "podanga" wrote.

Enna da thappu pannuvaennu paarthutu irukeengala?. Thappa vaera thappu solreenga.

Shy

Shy,

Appdingringa.. Seri appdina ok, I will edit the post.

"Shy wrote" ellai, "podanga" wrote.

Enna da thappu pannuvaennu paarthutu irukeengala?. Thappa vaera thappu solreenga.

Shy

Shy,

Appdingringa.. Seri appdina ok, I will edit the post.

Shy

01-08-2004, 09:41 PM

I dont understand.. anyway.. thanks

Shy

Shy

suryalover

01-10-2004, 03:40 AM

We cannot divide by zero....Indeterminate...

But what Shy explained is correct...

Thats my opinion...

Regards,

Surya.

But what Shy explained is correct...

Thats my opinion...

Regards,

Surya.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.1.8 Copyright © 2019 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.