posted 6 years ago

Start with: -20 = -20

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

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

posted 6 years ago

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.

Arun Giridharan wrote:Start with: -20 = -20

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.

posted 6 years ago

-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

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

Each number system has exactly 10 different digits.

posted 6 years ago

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

- 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: 1123

7

posted 6 years ago

I'm curious...

We seem to see a handful of these "proofs" each year. Does anyone here

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.

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.

Joanne Neal

Rancher

Posts: 3742

16