1 = 0

[kiLLe_512]

That's bloody brilliant!

[Florgenator]

Actually, yes 0.9999..... is in fact 1: x = 0.99999.... 10 x = 9.999999.... multiply by 10 10 x = 9 + 0.99999.... split right side into arithmetic expression 10 x = 9 + x replace 0.9999.... with "x" 9 x = 9 subtract "x" from both sides x = 1 divide by 9. without dividing by "0"

[HobbyProggy]

Thank god signature is not an object you first have to convert .ToString() right?

Rules for the FOSW ![^]

if(this.signature != "")
{
MessageBox.Show("This is my signature: " + Environment.NewLine + signature);
}
else
{
MessageBox.Show("404-Signature not found");
}

[MKJCP]

If you divide by zero you get sucked into the mathematical black hole where all logic is lost. But if it were true that 1=0, would that simplify chip design? "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing, drink deeply or taste not."

[BallsMcShaft]

The second statement is false. if x = y, then x2 does not equal xy; x to the second power equals xy. For example: if 1=1 then 1(2) does not equal 1(1) Bullshit from the start, not to mention the division by zero

[User 12150297]

Am I the only one that doesn't see the issue that we are not dividing 1 by 3.... 1 = 3/3... If you're going to divide by 3 on the 1... wouldn't you need to also need to divide 3/3 by 3 also... 1/3 = (3/3)/3.... which would both be .03333... ??

[User 11955655]

Sorry guys but second line is false its only true when x=1 or 2 x = y. Then x2 = xy is wrong if x=3 , xy=9 x2=6 6 !=9 you can't divide this way if its proper algebra left side is x2 - y2   2(x-y) ------- = ------ = 2 <- left side of the equation (x-y)        (x-y) and obviously you cant separate (x-y) from the right side (xy - y2)/(x-y) != y sorry guys example is flawed and 1 != 0

[spa_war]

Unfortunately, this "proof" falls apart at the 2nd line. x2 = xy only holds true for 0, 2, and -2. The correct equation is x^2 = xy. Still, a pretty interesting use of mathematics in an attempt to destroy all of our beliefs in what is thought to be true. :thumbsup:

[mBuchwald]

This appears to work, but only because you are dividing by zero since (x-y) is, by definition of the first line, equal to zero.

[Dominic Amann]

huh? I don't think x = y implies x2 = xy. How did you get that?

[willichan]

HobbyProggy wrote:

because 1/3 is 0,333

No. 1/3 does not equal 0.333. 1/3 is APPROXIMATELY 0.333. and 0.99999 is not technically 1. It is APPROXIMATELY 1 There is even a different symbol for it. 1/3≈0.333 (1/3 is approximately equal to 0.333) 0.99999≈1 (0.99999 is approximately equal to 1)

Money makes the world go round ... but documentation moves the money.

[James Curran]

Quote:

A high school teacher showed this to me some 10+ years back (feeling old now).

10+ years is making you feel old? I saw that in high school 35+ years old..... (*) Even then, was able to figure out the flaw.

Truth, James

[Member_5893260]

As has been pointed out here, at some point you're dividing erroneously. But, you can prove that 0 = any number you want, using the derivation of differential calculus, as described here[^]: if you plug numbers into the equation at stage 3, you can "prove" pretty much whatever you want to prove. But of course, math is a language, not reality - and you can speak nonsense in any language.

[Member 11711973]

If 1 = 0, then 1 - 1 = 0 - 1, which means -1 = 0. Contradiction, so 1 = 0 can't be true.

[charleslbryant]

This is a code site so I wanted to prove this with C# and it fell apart for me.

[TestMethod]
public void TestMethod1()
{
//x = y
//Assuming y = 5.
var y = 5;

        var x = y;

        //Then x2 = xy
        Assert.AreEqual(x \* 2, x \* y); //Assert.AreEqual failed. Expected:<10>. Actual:<25>.
    }

[ClockMeister]

Sorry, that doesn't work. x2 is NOT equal to xy. That's like saying 2x = x*y which is ONLY true if x and y are both 2. Cute, but does not float.

[Vachaun22]

Well, the first problem with this is x = y then x2 = xy IFF x = y = 2 This was stated just above, but I didn't get that far when I was reading the comments...

[jschell]

HobbyProggy wrote:

because 1/3 is 0,333..

No it isn't. Mathematics defines and recognizes rational numbers. Mathematics defines and recognizes decimal numbers. They are two different things. Your equating them as the same does not remove certainly hundreds of years of mathematics and mathematicians that recognize and correctly differentiate the two. Certainly when I took mathematics courses that taught mathematics as it was implemented in computers they emphasized the assumptions and limitations of finite math. Actually understanding those assumptions and limitations makes the difference clear. Note clearly that in the above those were mathematics classes and not computer science classes. The difference is often where the former teaches the math and the later teaches how to use the computer. (Yes I took both.)

[Member 3934551]

Seeing you're playing with polynomials there, aren't you? following the logics.. x = y x^2 = xy x^2-y^2 = xy-y^2 (x-y)(x+y) = (x-y)y x+y = y 2y = y however you draw the wrong conclusion here, go on like this: 2y-y = y-y y = 0

[obermd]

Actually 1.0 = 0.9999... I did the derivation of this proof as an exercise in a algebra class back in the early 80s.