mar01
- 1
- 0
given a=b
a²=ab
subtract b² on both sides
a²-b²=ab-b²
(a+b)(a-b)=b(a-b)
a+b=b
a+a=a
2a=a
2=1
simple
The discussion revolves around the question of whether the statement "1 = 2" can hold true under the Peano axioms and in various mathematical contexts. Participants explore different mathematical systems, logical arguments, and definitions related to numbers, particularly focusing on the implications of such an equation.
Participants express a range of views, with no consensus on the validity of "1 = 2." There are competing interpretations of mathematical definitions and the implications of various algebraic manipulations.
Discussions include unresolved mathematical steps, particularly around the manipulation of equations and the definitions of rational numbers. There are also differing opinions on the validity of certain mathematical operations.
mar01 said:given a=b
a²=ab
subtract b² on both sides
a²-b²=ab-b²
(a+b)(a-b)=b(a-b)
a+b=b
a+a=a
2a=a
2=1
simple
Not true.Sobeita said:Okay, how about this one?
1^1 = 1; // Exponential identity.
1^2 = 1; // A power of 1 equals 1.
1^1 = 1^2. // Substitution of like terms.
1 = 2. // Exponents are equal if the bases are equal.
:)
jnorman said:i remember my father showing me a proof once that 1=2, but can't quite recall it. but, if you start with the equation:
x^2 -1 = 0, you can factor x^2 - 1 into (x+1)(x-1)=0
then divide both sides by x-1, and get x+1=0.
for a value of x=1, you have shown that 2=0.
:-)
Mark44 said:Not true.
Assuming a > p, if ax = ay, then ex lna = ey lna
This implies that x = y OR that a = 1.
If a = 1 as in your "proof" then x and y can be unequal.
Sobeita said:Okay, how about this one?
1^1 = 1; // Exponential identity.
1^2 = 1; // A power of 1 equals 1.
1^1 = 1^2. // Substitution of like terms.
1 = 2. // Exponents are equal if the bases are equal.
:)
LumenPlacidum said:I really like this one. It hides the division by zero very well.
navneet1990 said:is this possible
1 = 2
??
When the Peano axioms were first proposed, Bertrand Russell and others agreed that these axioms implicitly defined what we mean by a "natural number". Henri Poincaré was more cautious, saying they only defined natural numbers if they were consistent; if there is a proof that starts from just these axioms and derives a contradiction such as 0 = 1, then the axioms are inconsistent, and don't define anything. In 1900, David Hilbert posed the problem of proving their consistency using only finitistic methods as the second of his twenty-three problems.[12] In 1931, Kurt Gödel proved his second incompleteness theorem, which shows that such a consistency proof cannot be formalized within Peano arithmetic itself.[13]