####
**Snap! Websites**

**Work in progress
Snap! C++**

**Work in progress
Snap! C++**

Mathematics are very well defined, yet many people do make mistake.

There is a problem:

Let x = y, then

[math]{x} - y + y = y[/math]

[math]\large\frac{ x - y + y }{x - y} = \frac{y}{x - y}[/math]

And how about this one?

[math]\large\frac{10}{2} = 2[/math]

[math]\large\frac{10}{2} = 2[/math]

We can then simplify as:

[math]\large\frac{x - y}{x - y} + \large\frac{y}{x - y} = \large\frac{y}{x - y}[/math]

or

[math]{1} + \large\frac{y}{x - y} = \large\frac{y}{x - y}[/math]

[math]{1} = \large\frac{y}{x - y} - \large\frac{y}{x - y}[/math]

[math]{1} = 0[/math]

Now we know that x = y or 1 = 1 is true and that 1 = 0 or 0 = 1 is true, we pose:

0 = 1

1 = 1

1 = 1

Adding these three equations we get:

0 + 1 + 1 = 1 + 1 + 1

or

1 + 1 = 3

You know where the demonstration fails? Post a comment below!

## All of These "Proofs" Are Flawed

I have read many "proofs" for bizarre mathematical statements that "prove" that 1 = 0, or that 1 + 1 = 3, or that 1 = 2. I even saw a very convincing one that 2 + 2 = 5. However, after carefully investigating each case, I have concluded that all of these statements, while they appear correct have mathematical impossibilities in them. Many people have noticed that there is an error in this "proof", as it is impossible to divide by zero. This is a common occuring theme in these "proofs", where by using algebra they try to justify dividing by zero as being mathematically correct. It is not. It is mathematically incorrect to divide by zero, and the statement would be mathematically invalid, therefore disproving this "proof". Other types of these "proofs" use similar ideas use similar tools to present convincing but mathematically flawed statements, by doing things such as dividing by zero, using the square root of a minus number etc. In every case I have come across, a device such as this has been used to fool the viewers. All of these "proofs" contain therefore mathematically invalid and incorrect statements.

Imperator

## Re: Proof that 1 + 1 = 3.

In this you take 0=1 but this is not possible by any math tricks.

## Number Book

Thanks for sharing excellent information. Your web-site is very cool. I am impressed by the details that you’ve on this blog. It reveals how nicely you perceive this subject. Bookmarked this website page :)

## Re: Proof that 1 + 1 = 3.

logically 100% correct, however mathmatically can not divde on zero

(x-y=0)which is infinitive

## Re: Proof that 1 + 1 = 3.

WELL A COW CAN EQUAL ONE

## Re: Proof that 1 + 1 = 3.

1 can never = 0.

## Re: Proof that 1 + 1 = 3.

Everybody can divide by zero ... OTOH you may not like the outcome :-)

## Re: Proof that 1 + 1 = 3.

If you assume that x=y, x-y=0

That makes y/x-y invalid because you can't divide with 0

## Re: Proof that 1 + 1 = 3.

Here is the real proof of how 1 + 1 = 3

as we know here we are trying to proof L.H.S. = R.H.S mean 1 +1 = 3

now take value 1 = x ........... (1)

so over equation will be

--> x + x = 3 ........................ equation (1)

--> 2x = 3

--> x = 3 / 2

--> x = 1.5 .................. now will keep this value in equation (1)

so it will be

--> 1.5 + 1.5 = 3

--> 3 = 3

-- > L.H.S. = R.H.S and here you go and i havent mention that X = Y as someone mentioned in here that what if x = y is not there

## Re: Proof that 1 + 1 = 3.

In the example above, when the writer states what we know x=y, and 1=1 and so on, there's a mistake there assuming x=y=1 therefore when (x-y)/(x-y) happens the answer is not 1 its 0/0 which is an undefined value. Therefore the arguement is not valid.

## Re: Proof that 1 + 1 = 3.

a proof must be applicable in every condition,but your's is applicable to

(type)1+1=3i.e, if

X = Y&

( according to you)X + Y - Y = Yif

(w.r.t to your format and so on.)X +( Y - Y......)= Ythen, it is not equal to your format at an infinte level.

thus, your format is in correct &

1+1is not equall to3.## Re: Proof that 1 + 1 = 3.

No, because if x doesn't equal y then x + y - y = y isn't a true statement.

## Re: Proof that 1 + 1 = 3.

Let's say x did not equal y. There is still proof that 1=0.

## Re: Proof that 1 + 1 = 3.

if you do x-y+y/x-y, and x=y, you would end up with -y/0 which is undefined

## Re: Proof that 1 + 1 = 3.

this is troll math.... if x=y then x-y=0 therefore you would divide by zero in the third step, leaving the domain of x=y.

## Re: Proof that 1 + 1 = 2.

## Re: proof that 1+1=2

Wow. These people take this very seriously

## proof that 1+1=2

you're thinking like a *** of course 1+1=2 because its all in mathematics you have 1 you add one and you get 2 so shut up and stop being a ***!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

## Re: Proof that 1 + 1 = 2.

## Re: Proof that 1 + 1 = 3.

you do not come out with infinity, you come out with undefined, which is completely different. this would appear as an asymptote or hole on a graph, a place where the graph of the equation does not exist because it is undefined, or unanswered, at said location, because you cannot divide by zero, and so when the denominator of an equation becomes equal to zero, you end up with a hole or asymptote in the graph.

## Re: Proof that 1 + 1 = 3.

no! when you divide by zero, and 0 is not the numerator, you come out with infinity, not 0

## Re: Proof that 1 + 1 = 3.

you can divid 0 but it always comes out to 0 unless 0 is the denominator

## Re: Proof that 1 + 1 = 3.

x=y

therefore, x-y=0

you cannot divide by 0

dis proof is doo-doo

## Re: Proof that 1 + 1 = 3.

This has been troll trapped like crazy.

ok so:

1=a wrong

2=a neutral

3=a right

<]:) everybody knows that 1+1=11 silly

Oh yeah, and I saw some thing on TV that said Einstein said something that was later proved to be incorrect in black holes. He was wrong in that circumstance because you can divide by zero in black holes. Basically, if you threw this equation into space, and it had the wrong directions, it would turn right.

## Re: Proof that 1 + 1 = 3.

FAIL....... but still LOL & ROFL......:D

## Re: Proof that 1 + 1 = 3.

neither is this

## Re: Proof that 1 + 1 = 3.

not necessarily

## Re: Proof that 1 + 1 = 3.

haha, nice, that was a good one :)

## Re: Proof that 1 + 1 = 3.

here's a simple version of that equation. . .

1 = Wife

1 = Husband

add them together. .

1 Wife + 1 Husband = 1 Child

there are three of them now. . .

Now theres a significance. . Wahahahahaha ROTFL. . .

## Re: Proof that 1 + 1 = 3.

Clearly false since x=y so x-y=0 and step 2 you divide by x-y and by the transitive property x-y = 0 thus you are dividing by zero, which gives an undefined response.

## Re: Proof that 1 + 1 = 3.

why yes it it....becuase you have 1 of nothing. or maybe 2 of nothing. lol

## Re: Proof that 1 + 1 = 3.

How come that 0 = 1? That can never be equal. There's no such thing as 0 = 1. For example i have 1 dollar, and you have no dollar, is that equal? duuh

## Re: Proof that 1 + 1 = 3.

this completely makes sense not!

## Re: Proof that 1 + 1 = 3.

Lmbo

## Re: Proof that 1 + 1 = 3.

Yea and maybe after this i can hop onto the rainbow in my backyard and go visit the nice gnome village and trade cake recipies with a leoplaradon. get at me

## Re: Proof that 1 + 1 = 3.

If you need to divide by zero, ask Chuck Norris. He knows how.

## Re: Proof that 1 + 1 = 4

1 is same as 1 squares take x as 1 than x squared + x spuared =2x squared 2 times 1 = 2 and square it so it is 4

## Re: Proof that 1 + 1 = 3.

Yea and maybe after that i can go hop on the

mental expressin my backyard and trade cake recipies with the leoplaradon that resides in the tarn deep in the forest where the wild things are.## Re: Proof that 1 + 1 = 3.

0 divided by 0 is not 1. its undefined

## Re: Proof that 1 + 1 = 3.

Y and X could equal 0, and I'm positive that 0 divided by 0 is 1.

## Re: Proof that 1 + 1 = 3.

Excellent answer! 8-)

If you want a

Snap! Blog Lite, let me know, and we'll get things going for you.Thank you.

Alexis Wilke

http://snapwebsites.com/

## Re: Proof that 1 + 1 = 3.

You cannot divide by (x-y) because if x=y then (x-y) = 0 and you cannot divide a number by zero. If you work the problem backwards, then at the division step it would be saying that because x*0 = y*0 then x = y, which is not necessarily true.