TikTok is a bad math goldmine! Solving x+2=x-2. Reddit r/sciencememes
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 6 сен 2024
- Learn how to correctly solve the equation x+2=x-2. Subscribe to @bprpmathbasics for more algebra tutorials.
Original post on Reddit: / qjsr7xycd4
-----------------------------
I help students master the basics of math. You can show your support and help me create even better content by becoming a patron on Patreon 👉 / blackpenredpen . Every bit of support means the world to me and motivates me to keep bringing you the best math lessons! Thank you!
-----------------------------
#math #algebra #mathbasics
1 divided by 0 (a 3rd grade teacher & principal both got it wrong)
ruclips.net/video/WI_qPBQhJSM/видео.html
You wasted your time with this video.
If you apply limits and assume x is going to negative or positive infinity you get an answer.
*Reddit* isn't any better.
@@ToguMrewuku Hi #bot
@@adam.maqavoy at least reddit has downvotes and a place for math, so people know if they're wrong
Let's be honest, you can already see just by looking at the question that this will have no solution...
Yes, I can.
This stupid comment has more likes than the comment below this, which has actual valuable information unlike this junk
(X+4) does not equal x
Who came up with it was for sure just writing down random numbers, the statement "a number plus two is equal itself minus two" is a paradox
@@devookoWell not exactly that because it is still working out something, you can just read it and say no soln exists, because the statement essentially says that find x such that increasing x by 2 is the same as decreasing x by 2, which is not possible. So no solution.
"x+2=x-2"
"No it doesn't"
Nuh uh
"Time of day" + 12 hours = "Time of day" - 12 hours
@@khaitomretro you missed a (mod 24) at the end
@@kebien6020 "x+2 = x-2... in ℤ₄; I'm fine!"
@@khaitomretro no. That cannot be used to solve this problem.
Guy had the mental prowess to apply difference between two squares, but not enough to do the first step right💀💀
That's how you can tell that this is almost certainly someone yanking our chain. Most of the algebra is just to distract attention from the blatantly ridiculous first step.
Bros probably solve the 1st line, then ask chatgpt to solve the rest 💀
What he is showing first is the solution from the TikTok video. Then he proceeds to show how it is wrong.
@@cybore213 OC wasn't talking about bprp
@pegasoltaeclair0611 Thanks. Sometimes it's hard to figure out who the comment refers to. But I should have figured out that the OP was referring to the guy who posted the TikTok answer.
-Remembers the negative square root
-Forgets division exists
-remembers the negative square root
-doesnt realise a number minus two would never be equal to the same number plus two
My eyes are bleeding from the proposed solution
I mean they literally could’ve just checked it, there is no way 2+2 = 2-2 (if you use sqrt4 which idk why they didn’t even simplify it down to just 2 but I digress)
There's nothing wrong with the way they've written it because √ is always positive.
I think the thing is that -2+2=2-2.
@@error_6o6but you're saying x=-2=2
Quadratics can have multiple solutions, x=2, x=-2 indicates that x could be either, and not that it is both
This is not math this is meth
😂
I was looking for comment like this. I got micro aneurysm just by looking at it: x+2=x-2 ==> (x+2)(x-2)=0, followed by second step.
Yea maybe in some imaginary cosmos where law of mathematics and physics don't exist created by TikTok's influencers.
Meth is herd
@@Mike_B-137
TikTok managed to combine additive and multiplicative rules together.
Because if you divided one side to the other, the other side would be one. If you multiplied, it would be (x-2)(x+2) but the other side would be (x+2)^2. Not 0.
Also, if you subtract the one side, you would get zero, but, the other side would = 4. Which, that is one way to find no solutions just like subtracting just the x on both sides. The problem is they multipled on the left side, but, subtracted everything on the right. And broke Algebra rules.
So, they applied multiplication to the left side and then assumed the right side would cancel to 0. Remembering some of Algebra but forgot you have to subtract.
And then after that incredibly wrong step, it just gets stranger and more wrong. Lol.
Gosh. I think the comment may possibly be a troll. Lol.
To mess with TikTok, but, not 100%. Could be someone overconfident in their Math abilities.
Either way, they seem to have just kept working until they found a solution somehow. And each step seems reasonable to someone untrained in Math, but, to someone who is trained in Math, it is obviously wrong and insane each step of the way to a misshapen "solution".
I saw some tiktok coders through other platforms and it was down bad, but this is too much, how come as a society we need to explain x+a = x-a if a /= 0 is wrong. System has failed.
I hate how the first step is (x+2)(x-2)=0, which immediately implies x=±2, and then the TikTokker goes on to undo that and expand the quadratic out so that they can solve it by taking square roots instead. That almost bothers me more than the fact that the first step is completely bogus.
The average tiktokers knowledge of math:
it’s probably a 12 year old who was just really eager to use the new identity he learnt
@LumiaFenrir-nn2pz and you’d be surprised by the number of Asian fetuses that know how to solve quadratic equations in microseconds
That proposed solution is got to be a ragebait ,
How did you do that?
@@blacklight683 there is no sol.
Computer Scientist: "x = x+1"
Mathematician: "Nuh uh"
Computer science square root of -1... because computers don't work without "I"
The fact that he had zero on the right, not 1 implies he was mixing up subtracting with multiplication, not division.
No, he simply copied what tiktok gave as the answer and then explained why it is complete bullcrap.
The tiktok was a joke, literally.
@@Kyrelel talking about the commenter, not the guy explaining
@@KyrelelWe say “Once TikTok was launched, parents’ nurture f**ked up”
(It’s Chinese, I try to translate it, but it still mean TikTok mess up everything)
I'm acting like that wouldn't happen to me, but it happened even on tests (the worst part is that I'm a physics undergrad 😅)
I have a solution, change = to ≠ 😅
Surely,
The equation
x + 2 = x - 2
should be replaced with
x + 2 ≠ x - 2
another solution is changing = to >
x+2=x-2 (false)
x+2>x-2 (true)
Another solution, the equation is in Z/2Z
I love this comment. 😂
@@wqrwtrue dat.
Not simplifying into 2 is probably intentional so that people won't just mentally check their solution and find out how garbage it is.
Bro got a degree in psychology but failed math 💀
Ахуеть, я только что узнал, что у слова "фигня" есть английский аналог.
@@user-qi2jg2zb5lне пиши сюда больше никогда
Lol yea most people just nope out seeing square roots even though this one is quite simple. But that means they won't catch how the answer doesn't even work if you plug them in which is checking your work 101
Hes getting stronger.
He can manipulate the board by sinply tapping it with the back of his marker.
We must stop him before its too late
😂
One day he shall no longer have a need for markers, his mind is enough
The real answer is not in finding x.
The real answer is that this addition is defined over ring of remainders of division by 4.
In which 2 = -2 since 2+2 = 0.
Therefore, the equation is true for any x.
We are threading in the realms of abstract algebra, where everything is possible.
Lmao! 😂😅
He edited it out
It's really unnecessary to do anything past subtracting x on both sides, you got 2 = -2, a likewise always false statement like 0 = -4. What I wanna know is how somebody thought dividing (correction: multiplying) both sides by x - 2 would give 0 on the right side. 🤣🤣🤦🏾♂🤦🏾♂
Even worse, this was obviously multiplying both sides with (x-2).
That was not dividing both sides. That was multiplying the left side by (x-2) while SUBTRACTING (x-2) from the right side to give that zero.
What was done as the first step is this : (x+2) = (x-2) → (x+2)*(x-2) = (x-2) - (x-2) → (x+2)(x-2) = 0
@@KualinarNono, it was just dividing both sides by 1/(x-2). I don’t know what composition rules they’re working under where that equals 0 on the right hand side, but technically it was dividing both sides by 1/… just as much as it was multiplying by (x-2)
@@Tristanlj-555 Dividing can never reduce a value to zero. ONLY a subtraction can do that.
Then, a division by (x-2) would have made the left side into THIS : (x+2)/(x-2) NOT (x+2)*(x-2)
@@Kualinar I know that. I just finished my last exam, complex analysis for my first year of mathematics at Uni. I alluded to that jokingly by mentioning composition rules.
The question goes like:
I love Math = I hate Math
It's a love-hate relationship
This is why you should always plug your solution into the original equation to make sure it's correct.
You'll run into a problem here, the solution they got is x = 2 or -2. If you plug in -2 on the left and 2 on the right it technically works. Obviously you're supposed to do the same number for both x values but we're past the point of them doing the right thing.
@@jacobisbell9388 Yeah to be fair that makes sense.
@@jacobisbell9388yea but even just looking at the equation, how would x plus n be equal to x minus n.
no calculations needed.
@@Tealen
Unless n is 0, which it is not.
@@Pingwn yes, in this case its 2. I should have mentioned it
I hate people who are bad at math, and think they are good at it. Even worse - people who know SOME math and do wrong things on PURPOSE and then brag about it just to get FREAKING COMMENTS OF PEOPLE WHO GET MAD AT THEM BUT DON'T UNDERSTAND THAT THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT THEY WANT
Actually, allowing for sufficient inaccuracy, x=infinity.
As
x 》infinity
Then
(infinity+2)/(infinity-2) 》1
Exactly. And -infinity as well.
@@vasiliynkudryavtsev True. Well spotted. 😊
Tis not how infinity works
@@treeNash Ah, yes, and neither is it how infinity DOESN'T work.🙃
Yea I’m no calculus major, but I know enough about (X)’s to put all X’s on one side and everything else that you can on the other. And that gets 0X=-4, which is about as wonky as the first question.
I am sure that if you would stop at 0X=-4, someone would say X = -4/0
@@tundcwe123i mean now that you mention it..... infinity + 2 = infinity - 2.
That is if you consider dividing by zero to equal infinity, and not undefined
@@xanderlastname3281infinity is not a number. Can't work with it like that outside of a limit or other special conditions.
@@Artleksandr ok but it's a concept
If you have infinitely many things (natural numbers), and you simply append 2 numbers (0 and -1) you still have infinitely many numbers
Cardinality hasn't changed
If you them subsequently remove -1 and 0, you still have infinitely many numbers
Sure it's not a "number number" like 5 or 87, but the concept still works
Adding or removing finite elements from an infinite set does not change the cardinality of the set nor the number of elements
I love the tap erase. Super tech white board ;)
Thanks!!
I got it from Amazon haha
@@adityagoyal7110
0-2=-2
0+2=2
-2=2
So no, its not correct
@@adityagoyal7110 aah yes 0 - 2 = 0+2 which would imply or -2 = 2
@@adityagoyal7110 Since when adding or subtracting to 0 gives back 0? Are you implying 0 is infinite?
Using Tiktok is already a signal for the lack of common sense
The very FIRST step of the proposed «solution» is totally wrong.
There are NO solution as this define two parallel lines.
Before I watch your video I'm going to say NO SOLUTION.
How can there be ?
To be precise, there is no solution in the real numbers or the complex numbers. But there are solutions in other number systems. For example, both the affine extended real number system and the projective real number system has a value infinity, denoted ∞ (or perhaps +∞ in the affine system). We have ∞+2 = ∞-2 = ∞ so ∞ is a solution. I'm sure there are other solutions in other number systems. Perhaps infinite cardinal numbers?
Integers mod 2 has infinite solutions :)
@@liamernst9626 That is an *excellent* answer! I wish I had thought of it. Of course, modulo 4 also works and has the advantage that "2" is still called 2 in that system.
@@rorydaulton6858🤔 this is essentially a question of whether two parallel lines can intersect at one point
@@vdm942no
@@vdm942 Agreed.
The graph also helps. It’s y=x graphed with two different offsets. Intuitively they are parallel and will never cross.
We have: x = x + 4
Now substitute x into x:
x = (x + 4) + 4
x = x + 8
x = x + 16
…
And similarly this can be done by first subtracting 2 over,
ie, x = x - 4
The only way adding these finite quantities can work without affecting anything is if x is +/- ♾️
1:10 Gesture erasing? Nice feature 😂
This is why i had a high school teacher who said he doesn't like calling it bringing to the other side because it causes confusion like that
You need to be doing the same thing on both sides, so he emphasizes that point in the equality so none of us do such a bjg mistake
My teacher also hated ‘cancel’ for the same reason. There’s no need to invoke any magic!
@@rezwhapDoes that also apply to Twitter?
2:41 divide by x-2
😊
I will be born tomorrow and i solved this,how could tiktokers not
Happy birthday
I immediately saw both equations as straight lines with gradient 1 and intercept 2 and -2 (y=mx+c).
So two parallel straight lines; therefore no solution.
Playing with the equation -> x+2 = x-2
Subtract (x-2) from both sides -> x-x+2+2 = 0 -> 4 = 0, which is categorically false so the original equation can't exist.
Now to watch and see what bprp does.
x+2=x-2
x=x-4
x/x=x/x-4/x
1=1-4/x
0=-4/x
x=-4/0
x=unsigned infinity
Now let's see if solution correct.
unsigned infinity + 2 = unsigned infinity - 2
unsigned infinity = unsigned infinity
Any real number added to unsigned infinity doesn't change it. Solution is correct.
The guy didn’t even check his solutions back by plugging them in
That’s rule #1 for anything you want to know you’re reasonably correct on
I'm sure if the original presenter of this problem and solution had done the check, he would have plugged in the negative value that he obtained on the left side, the positive value on the right, and shown that indeed his solutions work!
0:16 I’m sorry but exactly WHERE did that come from
Meth
In complex numbers, |x - 2| = |x + 2| is fairly obviously just any purely imaginary number i.e. Re(x) = 0. But that's the only way to get anything even approximating a solution.
Because he spent so much time going through everything I had an existential crisis where I KNEW that the equation was impossible, and was actively dreading that he was actually going to show a solution that worked somehow and turn my world upside down.
One solution (over the space of functions, not the reals nor the complex numbers) is that x is a periodic function of period 4, such as sin(pi x/2).
The first line is actually saying
+2 = -2
as you can subtract x on both sides.
That's it.
My favorite subgenre of this is when there are multiple fundamental errors, but the result happens to be correct.
x -> infinity
Proof: graph or by incomparablity of both variable
Hence no *Real* Solution exists
We can prove that equation has no solution
Step 1:- write the equation in this form x+2/x-2=1
Step 2:- apply compendo and dividendo and we get
x/2=1/0
And we all know that 1/0 is undefined
Judging by the school course - yes. Theres no answer, but if we go deeper X=infinity. That would be college answer.
X+2=X-2 - make+2 to both sides.
X+4=X - divide bith by X
X/X + 4/X = X/X - subtract X/X
4/X = 0
Any number divided by infinity equals 0.
I was thinking of perhaps having to go complex or something like that, but glad to know that "no solution" was actually the right answer, because I couldn't see it working in the complex plane either.
my favorite way to solve a system of equations is desmos graphing, and I could tell quickly those are two parallel lines which means no solution.
My calc teacher in high school was known for saying "your calculus would be fine if your algebra wasn't horrible horrible"
Infinity. Undefined. As X gets larger, you get closer to a solution... but you'll never actually get there.
10E99 -2 is basically the same as 10E99 +2. The difference would certainly would be undetectable to even the most high-precision instruments of measurement in any context.
I mean my instinct was to move everything to 1 side so (x+2)-(x-2)=0
Which is... x+2-x+2=0
Which is 4=0
And i was confused what is the actual solution, but i guess am not that stupid after and and there is none
Like what do you mean the answer is not somehow i³+5/3?
When you plot those lines they never intersect because they are parallel.
So having that in mind you know already there won't be any solution.
Thats why is very important visualize in your mind the equations first to then plan how to attack the problem.
I object to dividing both sides by x-2 so carelessly. You need to allow for the possibility that x-2=0, which means you need to divide the problem into cases, one where x-2=0, and the second case where it isn't zero and you can go ahead and do the division. Of course, that doesn't really help, but at least be rigorous in failure to solve the problem!
Ngl, the screenshot tricked me for a second because I focused on looking at the reply but didn't look back up at what he was solving. So it seemed to make sense until I looked back up and went "wait a minute"
Put aside the first step, I think developing the expression (x+2)(x-2) is also quite shocking, as the null product tells us that x+2=x-2.
It’s like taking (3x+8)(x-1)=0, developing it and using the quadratic formula, it is just dumb.
At first I thought "that's impossible". And then I thought "it's been over 20 years since I have done this stuff, I must be wrong and therefore an idiot." I was not wrong but I am still an idiot.
This is wrong. x is obviously {0, 1} in Z_2 (mod 2).
Or 2 in Z_4.
“the input is a contradiction: it has no solutions”
(x+2)/(x-2)=1
Lim{(x+2)/(x-2)=1} as x-> - or + inf
(1+0)/(1-0)=1 or (1-0)/(1+0)=1
Therefore X is - or + infinity
I simply moved all the variables to the left and the numbers to the right just like you and got:
x-x=-2-2
0=-4
-4 cannot equal 0 so the equation has no solution.
The dividing thing shows that in the limit of x to infinity, you get 1 on both sides. So infinity I guess?
x-2=x+2. x-x=4. x(1-1)=4. x(0)=4. x=4/0. x=∞
As a physicist, I would say this has infinitely many approximate solutions: any number that is significantly larger than 2 😀.
thank you for telling me i'm not dumb. i had to think really hard and couldn't solve it and was afraid i am missing something super simple. but what i wonder is now can you solve this using imaginary numbers. why would you, because why wouldn't you
The simplest thing to do is to check your answer by replacing the X with the answer you got. You will immediatly be able to tell the answer makes no sense.
I don't know what upsets me more- the fact that the original poster assumed moving the X-2 to the other side would require multiplication by X+2 instead of subtracting from it, or the fact that they EVEN DEFAULTED TO IT OVER DIVISION
You can multiply both sides by zero!
0*(x+2)=0*(x-2)
0=0
And since 0 IS equal to 0, then it is undeniable that it is in fact true,
Oh. I was thinking it's been too long since I've done algebra, because i couldn't see a solution that made sense.
x+2=x-2
x+2-x+2=0 At this point, I almost said "all real numbers" then I realized that's a PEMDAS issue. Actually:
x-x=0, 2+2=4
0=4, therefore no solutions.
Once you have (x+2)(x-2) = 0, you do not have to multiply, just set each to 0 and solve.
I figured out it was impossible so fast using 8th grade algebra.
x+2=x-2
add 2 to both sides
x+4=x
False, but you can continue by subtracting x from both sides
4=0
4≠0
Just the other direction of this guys final proof
We have,
x + 2 = x - 2
=> (x + 2) /x = (x - 2) /x, x ≠ 0
=> 1 + (2/x) = 1 - (2/x)
=> 2/x = - (2/x)
=> 2/x + (2/x) = 0
=> 4/x = 0
4/x cannot be zero but it tends to zero as x tends to infinity.
The solution of This Equation does not exist.
Just substract x from both sides and you get 2 = -2 and you have the answer.
Move x to the left side, we have x-x+2=-2, then 2=-2, contradiction, done.
I was going to say X = Root(4) = 2, -2
X+2 = X-2
Root(4) + 2 = Root(4) - 2
(-2) + 2 = (+2) -2
0 = 0
Which, of course, is wrong, since if X = Root(4) you'd --either-- have to solve twice for 2 on both sides and -2 on both sides resulting in two answers:
4 = 0 AND
0 = -4 which are both wrong.
Pretty sure you don't get to cherry pick which answer for Root(4) you use on either side, and pretty sure you can't choose the opposite just to make it work. That's also technically brute forcing, and I'm not sure how mathematicians feel about brute forcing. All I knew is the only way for the answer to possibly be true is for X to be -2 on the left and +2 on the right, and the only way to get 2 and -2 to be true at the same time is Root(4).
If we chart y=x+2 and y=x-2 we get parallel lines 4 units apart and they never meet. Hence at no point does x+2=x-2.
Infinite is a solution!
x + 2 = x - 2
x = ∞:
∞ + 2 = ∞ - 2
∞ = ∞
In a ring of integers modulo 2, 2=0 therefore x=x, so 0 and 1 are the solutions
x+2 = x-2
(x+2)/(x-2) = 1
And since we know x+2 is equal to x-2, we can substitute.
(x-2)/(x-2) = 1
1 = 1
The answer is all numbers ;) lol
x+2 = x-2
(x+2)^2 = (x-2)^2
x^2 + 4x + 4 = x^2 - 4x + 4
8x = 0
x = 0
I don't need to plug it in, I know I'm right ;)
You are SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO right!
TikTok should be banned!!
All math teachers drilled us to always check the result, substitute x and calculate both sides of equation whether they are equal. They teach that no more?
Stupid mishaps like this happen all the time, check is not optional.
When you add the X and subtract the other X, there is no way that both side will meet up.
Actually, I can solve this one.
If you think about the problem you realise that we talking about a point (x like treasure) and when we move oposite directions the same ammount (+2; -2) we get the same place.
I can only think about a circle (maybe part of a sphere or something).
Now we know x is a point on a circle and the opposit "end" 2 units from this point both sides and we also know the circle circumference is 4.
From these informations we can deduce that the question is the radius of the circle.
r = ?; K = 4;
K = 2 * r * Pi
4 = 2 * r * Pi
r = 2 / Pi
r = 0,6366...
Solved!
xD
I mean, if we include more than math basics than solution is:
x = ± infinity
But it makes sense to not bring up infinity cuz it will just solve all of the similar equations.
Using infinity doesn't make any sense here since we aren't trying to determine a limit or cardinality, but solving an equation.
If you thought about the initial equation even a little, you can easily see how it's ridiculous. What is a number, where you could either add or subtract 2 from it, and the result is still the same? What is a number where it wouldn't matter whether you added or subtracted anything, it's still the same? And there isn't any real solution.
We define a new kind of number "L" which takes the value +1 if it is on the left side of the equation and the value "-1" if it is on the right side of the equation. (From now on the sides of the equations have to be fixed and aren't freely interchangeable).
The solution is now X=-2L
(I'm actually curious if anyone has ever done stupid stuff like that, of course it very much goes against fundamental principles of equations, but I wonder if you could build up "side dependent math" that is still sound in itself if you respect certain new rules?)
You can't just multiply one side by (x-2) and not the other side.
My approach was a bit different:
x+2=x-2
Add 2 to each side:
x+4=x
This is clearly impossible. No solution.
This equation is a paradox or cyclical. Obviously a number plus two isn’t equal to the same number minus two.
I love how literally every step they take is incorrect in some way
x+2=x-2
x+4=x
(x+4)+2=x-2
x+6=x-2
(x+4)+6=x-2
x+10=x-2
You can keep subbing in x=x+4 forever, so basically
x+∞=x-2
∞=-2
Solutions are x=+infinity or x=-infinity
@@dannyyeung8237 infinity is not a number so you cannot even say x=inf. you can only say something like x approaches infinity, never equal
What? Your second step is wrong, Mr. TikTok
that's an interesting approach, too bad infinity is not actually a number
I did it by adding 2 to both sides, giving me X + 4 = X, which is also clearly impossible.
It has no solution, yes. But it can be solved in certain condition.
For an example, in modulus 4 any natural number can works for x.
I think commenters are forgetting that this is a channel for students as well, students who might be struggling with algebra. There are many ways to immediately convince yourself that the problem is unsolvable, e.g., the equations are parallel lines in Euclidean space. If you know what’s going on here, maybe don’t dunk on the folks who don’t. They’re often made to feel dumb in class enough already
Was having a breakdown for 4 minutes thinking you were going to come up with a solution.
Had me questioning my answer 😭
yeah its simple…i learned this in year 8th, like i dont know why the reddit comment got it wrong…I try it and i did this
x+2=x-2
x-x=-2-2 i grabbed all the x to the left side and numbers on the right side but changed the symbol
0= -4 so no solution
(x+2) = (x-2) : multiply by (x-2)
(x+2)(x-2) = (x-2)^2 : (a+b)(a-b)=a^2-b^2 ; (a-b)^2 = a^2 +b^2 -2ab
x^2-2^2 = x^2+2^2-2*2x
x^2-4 = x^2+4-4x : subtract (x^2+4) from both sides of equation
x^2-x^2-4-4 = -4x
-8 = -4x : divide by -4
2 = x : reorder
x = 2 : Answer
(x+2) = (x-2) : multiply by (x+2)
(x+2)^2= (x-2)(x+2) : (a+b)^2=a^2 +b^2 +2ab ; (a-b)(a+b)=a^2-b^2
x^2+2^2+2*2x = x^2-2^2
x^2+4 +4x = x^2-4 : subtract (x^2+4) from both sides of equation
x^2-x^2+4-4 +4x= -8
4x = -8 : divide by 4
x = -2 : Answer
If your answer is 2 and the first step you do is multiply by (x-2), you multiply by 0. Then of course you will get a valid answer. Same for the 2nd try. Your answer is -2, so multiplying by (x+2) in the first step means you multiply by 0, too.
(x+2) = ( x-2) : multiply by x
x²+2x = x²-2x : substract x²
2x = -2x : +2x
4x=0
x=0
So another answer. NO. Same reason as in my above comment.
You know (just to confuse the chat), there are structures where -4 might equal 0 though.
For example, in the GaloisField of order 2 (aka GF(2), or you could call it the Boolean Algebra, if you wanted to; Now basically this is integral math but modulo 2; or in terms of boolean algebra, multiplication is "logical and" and addition is "exclusive or" ). Ok, anyway, so there is not really a symbol 4 there, but you can just interprete it as 1+1+1+1 (ok, -1-1-1-1 for -4), aka 4 times 1, and it does indeed equal 0. So there the equation would actually mean x=x which is always true and in case of GF(2) x can be 0 or 1.
Sorry for this knitpicking comment.
Actually dividing both parts by x-2 wasn't that bad of a move, I think. Because then I first saw (x+2)/(x-2)=1 my first instinct was to put the left part of the equation into GeoGebra graph plotter. Lo and behold, f(x)=(x+2)/(x-2) is a hyperbola. And f(x)=1 is it's asymptote, i.e. the graph doesn't cross it at it's full length
I mean, that's the same answer to what we got through simplification, but it's just more obvious and understandable to me personally, lol
I knew the TikTok answer was wrong first look. Didn't trust myself on no solution though. Glad to see that was the answer though!
Clearly the answer is x=con(2)^-/+
You just need to invent a new kind of number called a conditional or con for short, the power being the condition, in this case minus over plus, which indicates that you flip the the number to negative when doing addition and positive when doing subtraction.
Easy, you just need to remember to use your con's
x + 2 = 0 and
x - 2 = 0 define two parallel lines, with no intersection. The system has no solutions, therefore equating them gives a contradiction.
The realization that he came back full circle was hilarious
The graphical solution is to plot y = x-2 and y = x+2. You will find these are two parallel lines. Since they do not intersect, the original equation has no solution. Also, if you begin with a problem with a first-order polynomial and end up with two distinct solutions, you made a mistake. A first-order polynomial can only have one solution. (A line in the XY-plane can intersect the X-axis one or zero times, no more.)