Timeline for Explain this incorrect proof that 3=0
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
10 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 5, 2023 at 6:52 | comment | added | justhalf | @ApexPolenta also, you can see the same fallacy by directly multiplying the original equation by x. In the new equation, x=0 is a solution. Substituting back to the original equation, you get 1=0. | |
| Apr 5, 2023 at 6:37 | history | edited | thisIs4d | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 2 characters in body
|
| Apr 2, 2023 at 23:26 | comment | added | ApexPolenta | @GalAbra Agreed. I've known about this paradox for a few years and have only really understood it as "it inserts an extra factor somehow" while handwaving the details. This answer is new to me so I'm definitely glad I thought to post it on this stack. | |
| Mar 31, 2023 at 9:55 | comment | added | GalAbra |
I love that E abstraction! Basically when we have (𝑥−1)𝐸 = 0, it means that at least one of the following (but not necessarily all of them) is true: (𝑥−1) = 0, 𝐸 = 0 or both. Hence, assuming that (𝑥−1) = 0 is incorrect.
|
|
| Mar 30, 2023 at 21:28 | vote | accept | ApexPolenta | ||
| Mar 30, 2023 at 16:13 | comment | added | Paul Sinclair | It isn't immediately clear that the OP's description (Rearrange, then substitute) is equivalent to your description (subtract this from the original equation). They are equivalent, of course. But seeing it takes deeper mathematical reasoning than the other steps. | |
| Mar 30, 2023 at 4:51 | history | edited | ACB | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Consistent notation
|
| Mar 30, 2023 at 2:30 | history | edited | thisIs4d | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 2 characters in body
|
| S Mar 30, 2023 at 2:23 | review | First answers | |||
| Mar 30, 2023 at 4:51 | |||||
| S Mar 30, 2023 at 2:23 | history | answered | thisIs4d | CC BY-SA 4.0 |