1=0.

This is a discussion on 1=0. within the A Brief History of Cprogramming.com forums, part of the Community Boards category; assuming that x and y represent the same nonzero number: x=y x^2=xy x^2 - y^2=xy - y^2 (x+y)(x-y)=y(x-y) x+y=y 2y=y ...

  1. #1
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    11

    1=0.

    assuming that x and y represent the same nonzero number:

    x=y
    x^2=xy
    x^2 - y^2=xy - y^2
    (x+y)(x-y)=y(x-y)
    x+y=y
    2y=y
    2=1
    1=0

    what just happened here?
    I honestly don't know...

  2. #2
    & the hat of GPL slaying Thantos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Posts
    5,681
    if x=y then x-y = 0
    so in the third step you are dividing by 0

  3. #3
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    11
    oh, wow. good catch.
    Thanks, man.

  4. #4
    Ethernal Noob
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Posts
    1,901
    My friend showed me this in high school, he was good at math so he thought he could trick us and I found it out fast. I do remember his being different, though. It still had the divide by zero thing.
    Here to Deceive, Inveigle, Obfuscate Since 1945

  5. #5
    & the hat of GPL slaying Thantos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Posts
    5,681
    Yeah I've seen this one enough to immediately know it is dividing by 0.

  6. #6
    Technical Lead QuantumPete's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    894
    Quote Originally Posted by Thantos View Post
    Yeah I've seen this one enough to immediately know it is dividing by 0.
    I think that's pretty much the only way to get 1=0. Undefined behaviour

    QuantumPete
    "No-one else has reported this problem, you're either crazy or a liar" - Dogbert Technical Support
    "Have you tried turning it off and on again?" - The IT Crowd

  7. #7
    Malum in se abachler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    3,189
    Well, you also violated a lot of conventions and rules about the seperation of equality and equivelancy.


    x=y

    this is a statement of equality which makes x and y dependant variables.

    x^2=xy

    this is a conjecture of equivelancy which only holds true for the case of x == y

    x^2 - y^2=xy - y^2

    this further assumes the case that x == y. If x and y are independant this statement is false.


    (x+y)(x-y)=y(x-y)

    You are mixing general solutions with special case solutions and presenting the special case solution as a general solution which is erroneous.
    y(x-y) = xy - y^2
    (x+y)(x-y) = x^2 - xy + xy -y^2 = x^2 - y^2 not xy - y^2




    x+y=y
    this holds true only for the case of x = 0


    2y=y
    this is true only for the case of y = 0

    the rest is nonsense as a result of faulty logic. makign a statement which holds true only for a single case and then applying it as if it held for all cases (false generalization,).
    2=1
    1=0

    for 0<x<9 all odd numbers are prime. TRUE

    since odd numbers are prime and 9 is an odd number 9 is prime. FALSE.

    that is what you are doing, assuming that because a statement (xy = y^2) holds true under restricted conditons (x = y), that it holds true without those restrictions.
    Until you can build a working general purpose reprogrammable computer out of basic components from radio shack, you are not fit to call yourself a programmer in my presence. This is cwhizard, signing off.

  8. #8
    S Sang-drax's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Göteborg, Sweden
    Posts
    2,072
    Quote Originally Posted by QuantumPete View Post
    I think that's pretty much the only way to get 1=0. Undefined behaviour
    You could get it without dividing by zero this way:
    1 = 1
    sqrt(1)= 1
    sqrt((-1)*(-1))= 1
    sqrt(-1)*sqrt(-1)= 1
    i * i = 1
    -1 = 1
    -1/2 = 1/2
    0 = 1
    Last edited by Sang-drax : Tomorrow at 02:21 AM. Reason: Time travelling

  9. #9
    S Sang-drax's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Göteborg, Sweden
    Posts
    2,072
    Quote Originally Posted by abachler View Post
    Well, you also violated a lot of conventions and rules about the seperation of equality and equivelancy.
    No, every step was correct except the step where he was dividing by zero.
    Last edited by Sang-drax : Tomorrow at 02:21 AM. Reason: Time travelling

  10. #10
    Ethernal Noob
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Posts
    1,901
    Quote Originally Posted by Sang-drax View Post
    You could get it without dividing by zero this way:
    1 = 1
    sqrt(1)= 1
    sqrt((-1)*(-1))= 1
    sqrt(-1)*sqrt(-1)= 1
    i * i = 1
    -1 = 1
    -1/2 = 1/2
    0 = 1


    still, it's clear to see that you're mixing equality with equivalence. Also that last step seems to just be the magic trick in the sea of misdirection.
    Here to Deceive, Inveigle, Obfuscate Since 1945

  11. #11
    Technical Lead QuantumPete's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    894
    Quote Originally Posted by Sang-drax View Post
    sqrt(1)= 1
    That's still cheating. :P But yes, you can do it without a divide by 0.

    QuantumPete
    "No-one else has reported this problem, you're either crazy or a liar" - Dogbert Technical Support
    "Have you tried turning it off and on again?" - The IT Crowd

  12. #12
    Registered User Stonehambey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Kent, UK
    Posts
    118
    Quote Originally Posted by abachler View Post
    Well, you also violated a lot of conventions and rules about the seperation of equality and equivelancy....
    Well of course, why do you think that most mathematical theorems and proofs start with "Given that...", "assume that..." or "Let us define...". In a mathematical proof, it is ok to define a set of initial conditions and then proceed logically assuming these are true, so long as you say so. So the fallacy in this classic 1=2 proof, is not where you suggest.

    For example, Pythagoras' theorem says something along the lines of "Given a right angled triangle, the square of the length of the hypotenuse is equal to the sum of the squares of the two remaining sides." What you appear to be arguing is that this would not be true if it was not a right angled triangle, well of course! That's why we define it to be one in the first place.

    Similarly, it's perfectly ok to say that x^2 - y^2 = xy - y^2 in this case, since the first thing we did in this proof was say that x=y.

  13. #13
    CSharpener vart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Rishon LeZion, Israel
    Posts
    6,424
    When you get to this step:
    sqrt(-1)*
    you get to the complex numbers - talking about complex numbers - you have 2 possibilities for the expression instead of one
    you choose the wrong one to preserve the equility
    The first 90% of a project takes 90% of the time,
    the last 10% takes the other 90% of the time.

  14. #14
    Malum in se abachler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    3,189
    Quote Originally Posted by Sang-drax View Post
    You could get it without dividing by zero this way:
    1 = 1
    sqrt(1)= 1
    sqrt((-1)*(-1))= 1 wrong
    sqrt(-1)*sqrt(-1)= 1 wrong
    i * i = 1 wrong
    -1 = 1
    -1/2 = 1/2
    0 = 1
    sqrt(-1) = i
    i * i = -1
    Until you can build a working general purpose reprogrammable computer out of basic components from radio shack, you are not fit to call yourself a programmer in my presence. This is cwhizard, signing off.

  15. #15
    and the hat of sweating
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Toronto, ON
    Posts
    3,545
    Quote Originally Posted by abachler View Post
    Originally Posted by Sang-drax
    You could get it without dividing by zero this way:
    1 = 1
    sqrt(1)= 1
    sqrt((-1)*(-1))= 1 wrong
    sqrt(-1)*sqrt(-1)= 1 wrong
    i * i = 1 wrong
    -1 = 1
    -1/2 = 1/2
    0 = 1
    sqrt(-1) = i
    i * i = -1
    Actually, the first one is right (look at the parenthesis):
    sqrt( (-1) * (-1) ) = sqrt( 1 ) = 1

    The second one is where reality flies out the window since it uses the Product Rule for Radicals, but the product rule for radicals says:
    The nth root of a product is equal to the product of the nth roots. provided that all of the expressions represent real numbers.

Page 1 of 5 12345 LastLast
Popular pages Recent additions subscribe to a feed

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21