Can 1 Ever Equal 2 Under the Peano Axioms?

  • Thread starter Thread starter navneet1990
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
The discussion revolves around the mathematical assertion that 1 can equal 2, primarily questioning the validity of various proofs that lead to this conclusion. Participants highlight that within standard number systems, such as those defined by the Peano axioms, 1 is not equal to 2, and any derivation suggesting otherwise typically involves flawed logic or division by zero. The conversation also touches on the nature of complex numbers and the arbitrary definitions of square roots, emphasizing that mathematical operations must adhere to specific rules to avoid contradictions. Ultimately, the consensus is that while unconventional number systems might allow for different interpretations, in standard mathematics, 1 cannot equal 2. The thread concludes with a reaffirmation of the importance of adhering to established mathematical principles.
  • #31


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
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
  • #32


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

division by zero alert!
 
  • #33


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.

:)
 
  • #34


No, 1 cannot be 2. Normally they say "2 in 1" or "3 in 1" but never vice versa.
 
Last edited:
  • #35


You're basically asking: "If one equals two, then can one equal two?"

Unfortunately, one will never equal two, so the underlying assumption that one can equal two is false.
 
  • #36


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.

:)
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.
 
  • #37


Ah, that makes more sense. Thank you. :) I've seen some 1=2 problems before, but most of them had a definite error (like (a+b)/(a-b) when a=b) rather than a subtle one like this.
 
  • #38


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.
:-)

First: you can not divide by x-1.
Second: x+1=0, then x=-1 => (-1)+1=0
 
  • #39


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.

Very nice proof.
 
  • #40


A proof for that 1=2 is not necessarily incorrect, we do not know whether arithmetic is consistent or not. To disprove such a "proof" one must find the error in all cases.
 
  • #41


If 1=2, then 2*2*2*2*2^infinity = 1. It would basically destroy everything we know. XD
 
  • #42


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.

:)

I really like this one. It hides the division by zero very well.
 
  • #43


I made that one up, because I knew the powers of one could be pretty dodgy - I assumed there was some sort of rule (x=y or a=1) that could cover it, but I didn't remember what it was.

I just did a search and came up with this page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invalid_proof

bece7a4ff69a1ca64899e8693b697dc3.png


ee85bd408b1e82c63883c9dfcb6f9f91.png
 
  • #44


LumenPlacidum said:
I really like this one. It hides the division by zero very well.

using those identity you should get 0=0, since log1=0
 
  • #45


navneet1990 said:
is this possible
1 = 2
??


Yes, if the Peano Axioms are inconsistent.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peano_axioms

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]
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
4K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
952
  • · Replies 72 ·
3
Replies
72
Views
8K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
3K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
5K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K