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 centers on the assertion that 1 can equal 2 under certain mathematical frameworks, specifically referencing the Peano axioms and complex numbers. Participants clarify that while 1 and 2 are distinct in standard arithmetic, alternative number systems can redefine these symbols. The conversation highlights the importance of consistent axioms in mathematics, emphasizing that division by zero and misapplication of properties lead to erroneous conclusions. Ultimately, the consensus is that 1 does not equal 2 in conventional mathematics.
PREREQUISITESMathematicians, educators, students of mathematics, and anyone interested in the foundations of number theory and the implications of mathematical axioms.
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]