Search results

What? I've seen tons more powerful RB26s than 1Js. I'd like to see proof of these 700hp Supras beating 1000hp Supras. Where? the drag strip? Put a competent driver behind the wheel of a 700hp Supra and a 1000hp Supra. Do you really think the 700hp car is going to make up a 300hp...

Well... you get interest by posting your car for sale. If someone makes you an offer and you don't like it, then don't sell it to them. But regardless, if you even want the option of selling your car, it has to be actually for sale.

When I post another, you are not allowed to play anymore. :rofl: (just kidding of course) That was good... First try too.

You have to remember we're talking about a proof that isn't even a true proof. It's fabricated to show the error in dividing by zero and what can go wrong. Why is the proof 2=1 wrong, not why is step 3 wrong. Step 4 isn't 0=0. Step 4 is (a+b)=b. So your answer has to reflect why Step 4[...

The following proof states that 2 = 1 -2 = -2 4 - 6 = 1 - 3 4 - 6 + 9/4 = 1 - 3 + 9/4 (2 - 3/2)^2 = (1 - 3/2)^2 2 - 3/2 = 1 - 3/2 2 = 1 Tell me why this is false. :)

I have a harder one if you guys would like to try. :)

You have to look at the proof in relation to the steps. Telling me that the expanded equation is equal to zero, which is ok, doesn't explain why step 4(in particular) and the following steps that result in 2 = 1 are false.

The solution is not zero. Read what Rob wrote. Step 3 to 4 shows cancellation by division but it's dividing by zero. That results in an undefined solution, not zero. Whether step 4 and below are right or wrong is incosequential.

^Winner. It really was that simple. You cannot divide by zero. That would cause an undefined solution. Therefore, you could not go any further than step 3. but if you COULD like the fautly proof shows, you would get the remaining steps that follow. Derk, you were so close when you were...

Colder than you were a few posts ago. In hindsight, your post that the whole thing is zero is incorrect but you were on the right track. The real solution does not lead to zero.

That's simple. a = b a^2 (a squared) = a*b <---- If a = b, then 'a' times 'a' or otherwords A^2 is equal to 'a' times 'b' (a*b). See? That step is sound. The next step is where the proof is fubar, as you pointed out, but I still haven't heard the correct reason. :) All...

(a+b)(a-b) = b(a-b) (a+b) = b <----this step is correct given that the above step is true. but it is not. why? :) (you're so close)

You are 99% there but you haven't told me what rule used in the proof does not exist in math. Everything you stated that is wrong is technically right given that the step you pointed out to be faulty, which is the correct step so good job, is a real mathematic rule. Tell me what is wrong...

Feel free.

Close... but no cigar

The responses, so far, are not the right answer to the proof's falsehood.

a+a = a just means that 2 = 1 and that is the solution, which is wrong, but that's not where the problem lies. :) going from (a+b) = b to (a+a) = a is mathematically sound since the given information states a = b. You're on the right track though. Keep going.

haha.:biglaugh: CSI up in hurrr

Obviously, our knowledge of mathematics does not allow for two different numbers to be equal to each other so the proof is false. To whoever finds where the proof fails, I'll be your friend forever. Or at least say good job...

If a = b Then, a^2 = a*b a^2-b^2 = a*b-b^2 (a+b)(a-b) = b(a-b) (a+b) = b a+a = a 2a = a 2 = 1 :biglaugh: :icon_mad: :icon_surp :icon_surp :icon_mad: :biglaugh: