How to equate 2=3?

Do anyone know how to equate 2 = 3 (using square and square root)?

I knew a long back but I forgot this now.

(Just I was betting with my firend.)

Thanks

why'd you bet that 2==3???

the equation has an error in it that usually slips by most people...so at first look they make it look like 2==3
:rolleyes:

Steve's right. If the proof resulted in 2 = 3, then there would HAVE to be an error (or some violation) in the math to allow this. I remember seeing a proof on 1+1=1 or something like that, and it involved doing something like:

1+1 =1
a+a = b
....
a/(b-a) = something

and then they continued on with the math using the (b-a) as if it was non-zero.

Anyhow, I'm super bored, so I thought I'd share that, and one more thing.

If 2 = 3, then it should be that 2 = 3 = 4 = 5 = ... ??

Oh well, back to work. =P

Destined

I wish that worked on math tests :cool:
x = 2

the answer is 265!

but 2 = 265 :cool: lol :p

yeah sorry I'll go now :rolleyes: :D :p

The proof for 1+1=1 went like this:

Applying a^2 = b^2 + c^2 to an equilateral right-angled triangle, s=1.

Therefore 1^2 = 1^2 + 1^2

1 = 1 + 1

Or something like that...

you can't have an equilateral right triangle

I know some of you people were curious about whether the question is right or wrong.

I can tell you that the question is correct using Mathematics bug.

Clue: Assume a number. Let us say 2.

1. Square it. (2²= 4)

2. Now take a square root of 4. (It gives two values. +2 and -2)

3. This is a bug in Math. I used only +2. But now I got -2. Now +2 is equalent to -2. If that is equal then 0 = 4 (Am I right)

This will be a simple proof of 0 = 4

2 = 2
Square it
4 = 4
Sq Root it. I can assume +2 on one side and -2 on another side.
2 = -2
When sending 2 to other side
0 = -2 + (-2)

0 = 4


BTW SteveCRM is correct. Pythagoras says a²+b² = c² is for Right angled triange.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by vsusi
Now +2 is equalent to -2. If that is equal then 0 = 4 (Am I right)

---

No. 2 is NOT equal to -2. :)

Digital-X-Treme

I know that +2 cannot be equivalent to -2.
I would have appreciated if u have given some explanation for ur comment.

Please read it fully?

I have written comments for each line. Please specify the error in the code and explain why.

Right-angled equilateral triangles are obviously impossible. Hence, 1=1+1 is also impossible. It had to be right-angled to be able to apply Pythagoras, and equilateral for the numbers.

It's only meant to bypass the dimmer ones. :p :D

vsusi, you are not correct and there is no 'bug' in mathematics.

Here is your argument:
2 = 2
Square it
4 = 4
Sq Root it.
I can assume +2 on one side and -2 on another side.
2 = -2

Here is the correct argument:
2 = 2
4 = 4
Square Root
+-2 = +-2

Your problem is assuming +2 on one side and -2 on another.

in math its not seen as just + or just -, but both.....

+- 2

Quote:

---

Originally posted by vsusi


There is no number called +-2 as far as I know. U have to read as + or - 2. Not + and - 2. Only one value.

---

In math, regardless of whether +2 or -2 are possible solutions, all possible solutions need to be evaluated, rendering +/-2

Out

vsusi

You are talking rubbish.

Just because a number has two roots does not mean that those roots are equivillant, does it?

-2 * -2 = 4
2 * 2 = 4

Therefore,

-2 * -2 = 2 * 2

=> 4 = 4.

What's contradictory about that?

How bored must I have been to have come in here and read this thread :p

SteveCRM & Others

+-2 is definitely two values. That is how I am proving my equation. ie. +2 and -2. I just said +-2 is not a single value. My argument was a single number cannot have two signs (+ and -)
But u should assume only one value among the two returned.

BTW my Windows 98 calculator is showing single value (2). Is that a Microsoft bug then. Microsoft assumes only one value I think.

Guys I just gave a clue which is similar to what I read some 10 years back. Now I couldn't find that (Mathematics Illusion) book.
I may lose my bet soon.


http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=Square%20root

says

Quote:

---

For example, the square roots of 25 are 5 and -5 because 5 × 5 = 25 and (-5) × (-5) = 25.

---

So there are two values.

vsusi - I think you are being deliberately obtuse to extend a silly theory.

A single finite value cannot have two signs, given. But a square root (or lets say the evaluation of the square root function) can yield two answers. I fail to see why you are then arguing that both of those answers (roots) are equivalent.

Orange trees and apple trees both yield a fruit you can eat.

That doesn't make an apple an orange.

Quote:

---

Orange trees and apple trees both yield a fruit you can eat.

That doesn't make an apple an orange.

---

Chuckle.

I think this topic is stiched up...

2 does not equal -2
you're equation is so wrong... 4 squared can eqaul either so
2² = -2²

I almost failed a question on a test like this one. It said what is the square root of 18 (this was primary school maths).

So I put
x = 4.24 (2 d.p.)

I was marked wrong and they said the correct answer was +4.24 and -4.24. I told them to get ****ed since the question didn't ask for two roots, it only asked for the square root, which I was taught to (at the same school) assume that the square root of any positive number is positive.

Area of a square is 36 inch². Find the length of a side.

Answer is -6 inch and +6 inch. LOL.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by vsusi
Area of a square is 36 inch². Find the length of a side.

Answer is -6 inch and +6 inch. LOL.

---

When relating abstract mathamatical concepts to real life, you have to make certain adjustments, such as discarding negative roots.

If you measure negative 6 inches would the tape measure go inwards?

no watch this

x^2-4=0

(x-2)(x+2)=0

x=2 or x=-2

BUT!!!!!!

sqrt(4)=+2 and just +2 becouse


sqrt(x^2)=|x| that is Theorem

and when u have sqrt((-2)^2)=sqrt(4) =|-2|=+2 and only +2\

vsusi:

plus OR minus a number....not plus and minus... :rolleyes: -2 = -2 or 2 = 2...one or the other :rolleyes:

a = 1, b = 1
a^2 - b^2 = a-b *Diff. of squares
(a+b)(a-b) = (a-b) *Divide by (a-b)
a+b = 1
1+1 = 1
2=1
=> 2+1 = 1+1, 3=2


BTW:
sqrt(x) MEANS +/- sqrt(x). There are two values for sqrt(x)
=>
4=4,
sqrt(4) = sqrt(4)
THis is as far as you can go.

"sqrt(4)=+2 and just +2 because sqrt(x^2)=|x| that is Theorem"
- note that this only applies when only sqrt(x) is written. i.e. if you see just sqrt(x), this implies the positive root.

u cant devide whit (a-b) becouse a-b=0

5*0=0
but 5!=1

x*0=0 / :0

=>x=1


and sqrt(x) can be just +.. there isnt two values!!!!

Prog_tom can make any equation possible...;)

Quote:

---

Prog_tom can make any equation possible...

---

Hehe, good joke. :D :D

I made up a formula to only show half a parabola (by making negative values result in undefinable answers)... the formula was

y = a * ( (x + |x|) / (x + |x|) ) * ( (x + |x|) / 2 ) ^ 2 + c

If you notice, the first factor (besides a) won't simplify to 1 if x is negative, since you get 0 / 0. The second factor can just be x but I like it to be complicated.

I was proud of doing this... until I found out someone already did it before me.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by mmiill
u cant devide whit (a-b) becouse a-b=0

5*0=0
but 5!=1

x*0=0 / :0

=>x=1


and sqrt(x) can be just +.. there isnt two values!!!!

---

Good point! Not to mention well spotted.

For those who had forgotten early on:

Quote:

---

Steve's right. If the proof resulted in 2 = 3, then there would HAVE to be an error (or some violation) in the math to allow this. I remember seeing a proof on 1+1=1 or something like that, and it involved doing something like:

1+1 =1
a+a = b
....
a/(b-a) = something

and then they continued on with the math using the (b-a) as if it was non-zero

---

I was just saying what they were referring to :)

Also:
"and sqrt(x) can be just +.. there isnt two values!!!! "

But there is two values, i think most people agree that both + and - both are answers.

The convention among mathematicians is that:
sqrt(x) = 4 implies x=2
x^1/2 =4 implies x=+-2

Hold up, if x ^ 0.5 = 4, shouldn't x = 16? And the answer equal +-4?

Sorry! I made a slip of the keyboard. I meant to write:
sqrt(x) = 4 implies x=16
x^1/2 =4 implies x=+-16

<Is quite embarrassed!> :o

You've done it again! If x is negative, the answer is imaginary!

Also, I finally found the answer which all mathematicians I spoke to agreed to:

Code:

---

Sqrt ( 16 ) = 4  and not -4...

---

The only way to have two answers is to have a question like this:

Code:

---

Solve for x:
x^2 - 16 = 0

---

The square root of any real number > 0 will always produce two+- real values, as mentioned numerous times in this thread. There's no ifs or buts about it. Its maths. Its just how it is... If people cannot fathom the concept, they should go away and read up on basic algebra, and try to understand further, without coming in here with arguments such as stating 1==2 or the like... </***** over>:)

This post is being dragged on... :o

True, for every nth root there are n solutions, including imaginary ones, but if the case was that the square root of a real number equal or above zero is positive or negative, why would the quadratic formula need a +/- sign? Why not just plus... otherwise there would be four solutions, + the positive, - the positive, + the negative, - the negative.

I fail to see where you are coming from on the four solution thing... the general form of a quadratic equation is: ax^2 + bx + c

By completing the square on this general form, we arrive at the quadratic formula, which gives us two solutions:

Code:

---

x = (-b + (b^2-4*a*c)^(1/2) ) / 2 * a
x = (-b - (b^2-4*a*c)^(1/2) ) / 2 * a

---

Dreamlax, oh dear. How feeble. I'm getting too old for this stuff. Just ignore everything I say ok!

[Digital-X-Treme],

Quote:

---

If people cannot fathom the concept, they should go away and read up on basic algebra, and try to understand further, without coming in here with arguments such as stating 1==2 or the like... </***** over>

---

Pretty funny. :)

I have 5 points to make:

1. This is the most ridiculous thread ever.

2. there are no bugs in math. the only bugs that exist are the ones people come up with

3. The visual basic function sqrt(25) will return 5. the actual mathematical operator would return ±5 (plus OR minus 5, not both)

4. If -2 = 2, i would be very rich, and i'm not.

5. Any number over 0 is absolutely absurd. if you have 20 apples, and give each of your friends 0 apples, how many friends could you have? None, becuase you're cheap.:D

Woah! Nobody thought I was actually serious do they? I was just making up bloomin' bollocks to keep this thread going.... Who really cares if this thread's heading nowhere, is it your business to say it sucks? Even if it is, what's stopping us from saying you suck... some people's opinions are best kept to themselves! Others should be blurted out at the wrong time! :D

Oh, and David, We all know what you meant though, I'm just a picky guy.

snakeeyes1000,
I've apologised for 3. already! Happy now?!
If 4. was correct, and 2=-2, then society would not exist like it does. Your bank account would be in debt. And missiles would go all over the place.

my math teacher would panic in this forum. he would say

2 == 2
3 == 3

there is no way around it without intentionally screwing your math

By David Hooper:

Quote:

---

If 4. was correct, and 2=-2, then society would not exist like it does. Your bank account would be in debt. And missiles would go all over the place.

---

ACtually, your account would be in debt AND profit at the same time, and if you bought something the seller would ALSO owe you the same amount.

Oh, and you'd be older AND younger than everyone else, and you could claim that you were always below the speed limit, but you could also be said to be too young to drink or drive :D

To try to change the topic, you actually can have a right angle equilateral (I think I spelled that wrong) triangle. Just not on a flat surface. Take a sphere, cut it in half, cut that in half, and cut that in half (1/8 of a sphere). You have a right angle equilateral triangle. You can also draw one onto a balloon. 270 degrees in a triangle:D.

I know that someone is going to say that it has to be a flat surface, but that seems slightly ridiculous to me: if you have a triangle drawn on a piece of paper and the paper bends, does the triangle cease to be a triangle?




Back to the original topic, I think that the proof that 2 == 3 might be the hotel story thingy.

Three men rent a hotel room for $30, each paying $10. After they're in their room, the hotel owner gives the bellboy $5 to return to them because it was only supposed to be $25. So in order to prevent fighting, he keeps $2 and gives each of them $1 back. So, they each paid $9, for a total of $27, and the bellboy has $2, giving a grand total of $29. Where's the missing dollar?

I'm sure I remember seeing this used to show $2 equalling $3 (although of course it doesn't;))

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Alphanos
To try to change the topic, you actually can have a right angle equilateral (I think I spelled that wrong) triangle. Just not on a flat surface.

---

Um, I'd have to say that this isn't a triangle anymore - unless you have a very open definition for triangle to include lines that aren't straight. However, I could be wrong.

Off to bed I go - too much Warcraft 3 :D

Destined.

The line is perfectly straight, its the surface that isn't:).

when you bend the paper, it ceases to be a 2-dimensional figure and enter's the third dimension, depth. So no, it, by definitition, is nothing more than a 3 curved lines, connected.

that debunks your logic.


M1|M2|M3|HO|BE
--------------
10|10|10|00|00
00|00|00|30|00
00|00|00|25|05
01|01|01|25|02

But where's the other dollar?





... just kidding!

I've got the dollar here... But if 2 = 3 then I have all the other dollars too.

each man has a dollar, the bellboy has 2, and the hotel has 25. This is no paradox, it's an inneficiency of the english language rearing it's uglier-than-usual head.

You know, people who don't know what they're talking about shouldn't bother replying to this thread...

The 2 = 2 thingy:
2 = 2
so 4 = 4
but if you square root that, you get:
EITHER
2 = 2
OR
-2 = -2
NOT a mix between the two (Such as 2 = -2)

The ONLY way you can equate 2 = 3 is by dividing an equation by zero, which as everyone might have realized is impossible to do (see http://www.vbforums.com/showthread.p...&pagenumber=3, near the bottom, posted by me). The principal there can be applied to equate 2 = 3 by simply adding 1 to both sides of the result.

If you can imagine the flaw in this thing:
If 2 = 3, then 1 = 1.5, simple enough I think. But if I actually had one dollar, then that would be 1.5 dollars. But that 1.5 dollars = 1.5 * 1 dollars, which is the same as 1.5 * 1.5 (if of course 2 = 3). You see the problem is if you kept going on like that you could have an infinite amount of money.

It's not a problem with the maths, it's just humans bending the rules. Maths says you CANT divide by zero, but if we DO do that, how can we blame maths when it all goes wrong?

Mr. Snake Eyes is almost right with the triangle on a curved surface thingy...

Except:

The triangle is STILL two-dimensional. You are however putting a two-dimensional triangle into a three-dimensional world. This necessarily distorts the angles and lengths of the figure (in this case I think the angles are all made smaller by a factor proportional to the curvature of the surface you're putting it on to relative to a flat plane, but DONT quote me on that).

Gordon Bennett

Just need some clarification

Quote:

---

The 2 = 2 thingy:
2 = 2
so 4 = 4
but if you square root that, you get:
EITHER
2 = 2
OR
-2 = -2
NOT a mix between the two (Such as 2 = -2)

---

You are closer to what I said before.

LHS 4 is different from RHS 4

4 = 4

if you square root that you get

2 = 2

or

-2 = -2


Can I assume like this

2 = -2

or

-2 = 2

Bcos there is no rule that if LHS has a +ve root RHS also should have +ve. Please keep in mind that you are not multiplying -1 or +1 on both sides. You are taking roots on both sides. There is no mix between LHS & RHS.

+2 & -2 are two roots of 4. Either one can be subtituted for root as you said.

Just analyse a little bit more. I can correct myself if I am wrong in my comment.

You're absolutely right vsusi! Give me your number, I'm looking for a used car, and who better to buy a car from than someone who charges -$1000?

The square root of 4 is either 2 or -2. That means 2 x 2 or -2 x -2. That does not include switching them.

You're trying to find a flaw in mathematics, when the flaw is in the enlish language. Get over it.

vsusi:

You said: "Bcos there is no rule that if LHS has a +ve root RHS also should have +ve."

That's complete crap:

Root(2) = ±2

So from Root(2) = Root(2) u get:

±2 = ±2

That 'plus or minus' sign is not interchangeable, i.e. either they are both plus or both minus, not a mix.

If I wanted to say -2=+2 or +2=-2 then I would turn one of the signs upside down so that it was 'minus or plus' (in order from the top).

However the square root function of mathematics doesn't do that, it does what's written above.

Gordon Bennett

What is Crap?

Quote:

---

Root(2) = ±2

---

LOL

Nishantp

Thanks for your post.

That is what I need.

Quote:

---

2 x 2 = -2 x -2

---

2² = (-2)²

Take square root on both sides.

(2² )^1/2 = ((-2)²)^1/2

Now 2^2/2 = (-2)^2/2

2 = -2 (Proved)

Thanks again.