At vero eos et accusamus et iusto odio dignissimos ducimus qui blanditiis praesentium voluptatum deleniti atque corrupti quos dolores et quas molestias excepturi sint occaecati cupiditate non provident, similique sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollitia animi, id est laborum et dolorum fuga.
Et harum quidem rerum facilis est et expedita distinctio. Nam libero tempore, cum soluta nobis est eligendi optio cumque nihil impedit quo minus id quod maxime placeat facere possimus, omnis voluptas assumenda est, omnis dolor repellendus.
Itaque earum rerum hic tenetur a sapiente delectus, ut aut reiciendis voluptatibus maiores alias consequatur aut perferendis doloribus asperiores repellat.
The proof involves using complex numbers and the fallacy lies in the fact that square roots are defined in a certain way.
no my teacher already proved that it wasnt true
yes guys all are correct!
Just have a look at this link http://www.math.toronto.edu/mathnet/falseProofs/first1eq2.html
Not the answer you are looking for? Search for more explanations.
That is a matter of definition. Proof relies on definitions. It can be done in numerous ways based on what we start with. (It doesn't necessarily require any specific part such as complex numbers.)
If we start with 1 and 2 representing two different numbers, then they are.
It is a good one to do for a maths exhibition!!!
The 1=2 is a classic fallacious proof which includes an erroneous step of dividing by zero. :)
if 1 and 2 represent quantities, then in order for them to equal they would have to correspond one to one
1 = *
2 = * *
they do not correspond one to one