This week's book giveaway is in the Other Languages forum.We're giving away four copies of Functional Reactive Programming and have Stephen Blackheath and Anthony Jones on-line!See this thread for details.
Win a copy of Functional Reactive Programming this week in the Other Languages forum!

Arun Giridharan
Ranch Hand
Posts: 290
Which is the same as: 16-36 = 25-45
Which can also be expressed as: (2+2) 2 (9 X (2+2) = 52) 9 X 5
Add 81/4 to both sides: (2+2) 2 (9 X (2+2) + 81/4 = 52) 9 X 5 + 81/4
Rearrange the terms: ({2+2}) 9/2) 2 = (5-9/2) 2
Ergo: 2+2 - 9/2 = 5
Hence: 2 + 2 = 5

See... simple, isn't it?

i found this in some mathematical article ,i saved some others tooo

pete stein
Bartender
Posts: 1561
Which is the same as: 16-36 = 25-45
Which can also be expressed as: (2+2) 2 (9 X (2+2) = 52) 9 X 5
Add 81/4 to both sides: (2+2) 2 (9 X (2+2) + 81/4 = 52) 9 X 5 + 81/4
Rearrange the terms: ({2+2}) 9/2) 2 = (5-9/2) 2
Ergo: 2+2 - 9/2 = 5
Hence: 2 + 2 = 5

See... simple, isn't it?

i found this in some mathematical article ,i saved some others tooo

Your equations as written don't make much sense to me. Could you clarify them a bit?

Usually I've found that similar problems are due to division by 0, but again, I can't follow your math to see if this is the case here.

Henry Wong
author
Marshal
Posts: 21514
84

I think that you may have copied it wrong, because some of your transitions don't make sense. You are missing operators with some, and you added parens around the equals that compare the both sides.

Henry

Peter van de Riet
Ranch Hand
Posts: 112
-20=-20
16-36=25-45
4^2-36 = 5^2-45
4^2-36 = 5^2-45
4^2-2.4.9/2 = 5^2-2.5.9/2
4^2-2.4.9/2 +(9/2)^2 = 5^2-2.5.9/2 +(9/2)^2
[4-(9/2)]^2 = [5-(9/2)]^2
4-(9/2) = 5-(9/2)
4 = 5
2+2 = 5

I have made a picture for the correct formatting of the quotations above.
Between step 5 and 6 the following is applied a^2 + 2ab + b^2 = (a + b)^2
quotation.jpg

Henry Wong
author
Marshal
Posts: 21514
84
• 1

This is actually a common trick (although not as common as divide by zero). The trick relies on the fact that the square root has a positive *and* negative result -- and basically obfuscates the fact that they are taking the positive number in one case, and the negative number in the other.

Henry

Ryan McGuire
Ranch Hand
Posts: 1078
4
Henry Wong wrote:
This is actually a common trick (although not as common as divide by zero). The trick relies on the fact that the square root has a positive *and* negative result -- and basically obfuscates the fact that they are taking the positive number in one case, and the negative number in the other.

Henry

I'm curious...
We seem to see a handful of these "proofs" each year. Does anyone here still believe there are simple algebraic ways to prove that two unequal constants are equal?

I'll admit that sometimes it's a fun challenge to determine which one is the invalid step in a new "proof". I'm with Arun... this kind of thing may deserve a or maybe a , but I certainly don't think it deserves a , as some have gotten.

Joe Ess
Bartender
Posts: 9320
10
• 2

Joanne Neal
Rancher
Posts: 3742
16
• 2
Joe Ess wrote:

Ryan McGuire wrote:I'll admit that sometimes it's a fun challenge to determine which one is the invalid step in a new "proof".

And the invalid step in that proof is that the quote is 'the love of money is the root of all evil'