For those who are still wondering (1+1=3) why this happened is because In the step where he cancelled the squares on both the sides he did not use the concept of modulus. While taking square root on both sides the value obtained will be inside a mod sign. Ex: we have [√(x)²] will not be equal to x but will be equal to | x |
In the 1st proof i.e 1+1=3, you should not cancel out the square of a negative number on one side and square of a positive number in another side.3:04 In the 2nd proof i.e 2+2=5, you should not cancel out the expression whose sum adds up to zero(0) in any equation. 6:08
If x^2 = a The x= +a^(1/2) or -a^(1/2) In general there is no problem in neglecting the negative root , but in some cases we discard the positive roots. Actually , it is not a function. F(a) = b , F(a) = c where b =\= c implies F is a Mapping but not a function. Ok
The issue arises at 3:01 because after taking the square root on both sides of the equation, the result needs to be an absolute value. Therefore, the correct step should be |4-5| = |6-5|, meaning 5-4 = 6-5.
In the first case, 1+1 = 3, you reached the following equation: There you removed the parenthesis power from both sides. while on the right side you can write (4-5) or (5-4) which means 4-5=-1 or 5-4=1 and on the left side you can write 5-6=-1 or Write 6-5=1. In other words, the square root of both sides has two answers: 1 and -1. You deliberately ignored the -1 from the left side and set it equal to 1 on the right. This is where the path to the wrong conclusion begins.
@@georgesmith2667 it is not Russian, but Ukrainian. When I was reading the comments, there was an opportunity to automatically translate comments written in English or some other language into Ukrainian, so I wrote a comment thinking that you would also press the button and translate it into your language. And I wrote in the previous comment that this video is for those who did not study well at school.
It doesn't. Your formula is broken because you have two different values for x. On arrow line 3 you have x=4 y=5 on left side, then x=6 y=5 on right hand. The 6 should be a "z" "a" etc. so in principle your formula becomes (x-y)2-2xy=(z-y)2-2zy. So here you are considering "1" as a variable value, so then of course it could be equal to 3. But this logic you have shown above does not break the rules of mathematics.
in which class do u read ? xD even though if it was different values , you can see (4-5)=(6-5) and square on each of them .... after solution we will get -1 square=1 square which is again equal to the starting (1=1)
In second calculation. 4(4-3-1)=5(4-3-1) We can not cancel (4-3-1) from both sides, becoz the value of the term is zero and "0÷0" *is not defined* not "1" . For better understanding 0=0 3×0=4×0 If we zero from both sides Then 3=4 So thats why we cant say 0÷0 is 1 Its just not defined.
the step where the squares are removed is where you take the square root of both sides, but the square root of a value has two possible values (one positive, and one negative). when the signs are taken into account you resolve the issues. In the second calculation your cancellation step involves dividing by the value within the brackets (4-3-1), however given 4-3-1 is zero you are dividing both side by zero. The problem is dividing any integer by zero gives the result of infinity (so the correct result would be infinity = infinity).
You are going against basic BODMAS (Brackets, Order, Division, Multiplication, Addition, Subtraction) rule or PEMDAS (Parentheses, Exponents, Multiplication, Division, Addition, Subtraction) rule that is why you are getting the wrong result. In your first 2 examples brackets should be solved first.
You can't cancel the squares, it's just for our convenience. The importance of brackets is the base of mathematics. I did the same mistake, but in another equation in class 8th, then after wondering for hours, I found out that this is the wrong way.
3:12; he just canceled the squares so if we just solve what's inside the bracket we get (-1)^2 = (1)^2 which is true since the square of a negative number is positive but after canceling the squares he wrote -1 = 1 which is not true and if we take the square root of (-1)^2 we get 1 so the correct thing after 3:12 would be 1 = 1 which is true
6:24 I apologize if my previous responses were unclear. You are absolutely correct. Dividing by zero is undefined in mathematics, and that's where the error in your original manipulation occurs. When you divided both sides by (4-3-1), you were effectively dividing by zero, which is not a valid operation. This is why the conclusion that 4 = 5 is incorrect. Thank you for clarifying, and I apologize for any confusion caused by my previous responses. If you have more questions or need further assistance, please feel free to ask.
Exponents don't cancel. You would have to take the square root of each side, which then makes each side ±. If you want to simplify it you could take the absolute value of each side: |4-5|=|6-5| => |-1|=|1| => 1=1
(4-5)^2 = (6-5)^2 Does not imply: 4-5 = 6-5 rather what it does imply is that: |(4-5)| = |(6-5)| => |-1| = |1| => 1 = 1 So 1 + 1 = 2 is the only possible outcome and 1 + 1 = 3 is not possible.
2:42 can also be as (5-4)^2 If you remove the squares +- term is used so that the product varies Taking positive and negative term differently gives you different answers out of them you get (1, something else)you can't directly consider it as true
The statement “1 + 1 = 2” may seem obvious, but proving it rigorously within a mathematical framework requires foundational principles and logical definitions. Here’s an outline of how it’s proven in formal mathematics: 1. Foundations in Set Theory and Logic In advanced mathematics, proofs start with basic elements like set theory and formal logic, which define numbers and their properties rigorously. The work of Giuseppe Peano laid out the foundations with the Peano axioms, which define the natural numbers (1, 2, 3, …) and their relationships. 2. Peano’s Axioms Peano’s axioms include these key points: • There is a first number, often denoted as 1. • Every number has a unique “successor,” representing the next natural number. • Numbers can be defined by these successive applications. For instance, we define 2 as the successor of 1. So: • 1 is the base number. • 2 is defined as the number that follows 1 (the successor of 1). 3. Defining Addition Using these definitions, we can define addition. The addition of two numbers  and  (using Peano’s definitions) can be seen as counting forward in steps. Specifically: •  is defined as the successor of . •  is defined as finding the successor of 1. Since the successor of 1 is defined as 2 by Peano’s construction, we conclude:  4. Formal Proof in “Principia Mathematica” In the early 20th century, mathematicians Alfred North Whitehead and Bertrand Russell proved  in their monumental work, Principia Mathematica. Their proof takes hundreds of pages to build up from the most basic logical principles. The statement  ultimately depends on: • The definitions of the numbers 1 and 2, • The construction of addition as defined by successor operations, • Logical consistency within the framework of set theory and Peano’s axioms. Though we can see it intuitively, the rigor of proving  lies in confirming that this follows logically from the defined rules and structures of mathematics.
When removing the squares u have to put +-. For ex: ( (-1)^2 = (1)^2 ) this equation is correct, now if you remove the square u can't say -1 = 1 . But say | -1 | = | 1 | so that the negative is removed so 1 = 1 ... Now for (4-5)^2 = (6-5)^2 it's the same concept. Removing the squares: |4-5| = |6-5| To simplify it further: | -1 | = | 1 |, which is just 1=1
There were two roots when you eliminated the square .there you can shift one square to other side and then use a²-b²=(a-b)(a+b) where a-b is actually a imaginary root in this case while a+b is a perfect root which satisfies the rules of mathematics and makes us feel what we studies was not wrong. Read it fully if you want to know the truth
According to step 2, root of something is always "+" or "-" we cannot just cancel the squares like that. And also we can write (a-b)^2 as (b-a)^2. If you solve the problem by putting (b-a)^2 then you'll get 1+1 = 2 as the answer... and in the title you have written "breaking the rules of mathematics" so, for this video, it's okay
I realize that things gone wrong because of eliminating power 2 ,but i don't khow what the reason,your explanation make me clear. can you know the reason why 2+2=5 in the second solving.
Let's go through the series of mathematical operations step by step to identify the errors: 1. The initial statement "1 + 1 = 3" is boxed at the top as the proposition being proven. 2. They start with a true statement "1 = 1" to begin the manipulation. 3. The following step, "41 - 40 = 61 - 60," is correct as both sides equal 1. 4. They then proceed to "16 + 25 - 40 = 36 + 25 - 60." This step is valid because 16 + 25 = 41 and 36 + 25 = 61, with both sides subtracting the same amount, resulting in 1 = 1. 5. The next line, "4^2 + 5^2 - 2*4.5 = 6^2 + 5^2 - 2*6.5," is also correct. Here they're expanding the squared terms (4^2 and 6^2) and including the middle term of the binomial expansion which would indeed cancel out to give 1 = 1 if the terms were correct. 6. But the operation that follows, "(4 - 5)^2 = (6 - 5)^2," is incorrect. They've incorrectly simplified the previous step. What should have happened here is that the left side would be 4^2 - 2*4*5 + 5^2 and the right side would be 6^2 - 2*6*5 + 5^2, and you cannot just cancel out the middle terms independently since they are not like terms. 7. Proceeding from the false equivalence "(4 - 5)^2 = (6 - 5)^2," they correctly calculate that (4 - 5)^2 = (-1)^2 = 1 and (6 - 5)^2 = 1^2 = 1. However, this is based on the previous incorrect simplification. 8. The next line "4 - 5 = 6 - 5" incorrectly assumes that if two squares are equal, then their roots must be equal, without considering that squaring is not a one-to-one function. Squaring eliminates negative signs, so while the squares may be equal, the original numbers may have been negatives of each other. 9. They then incorrectly cancel out the "-5" from both sides, which is not valid algebraic manipulation. 10. From there, they reach "4 = 6," which is obviously incorrect, but then they add "+5" to both sides, maintaining the incorrect equality. 11. Dividing by 2 on both sides, they get "2 = 3," which is a continuation of the error. 12. They conclude with "1 + 1 = 3," circled at the bottom, based on the erroneous steps above. The most glaring mathematical error is the step from (4 - 5)^2 to 4 - 5, assuming that because the squares are equal, the bases must be equal as well. This overlooks the fact that both positive and negative numbers yield the same square, so this does not hold when removing the square. The subsequent steps are based on this incorrect simplification, leading to the incorrect conclusion.
In first part, if x²=y² Doesn't mean x is always equals to y so you can't simply cancel power, They will only be equal if x and y both are positive or both negative. In second part what you did was dividing 0/0 which is also not defined. because 4-3-1 = 0. You can't cancel 0 from both sides that way.
@@passykiraboIf you're talking about the first part, then if you look carefully in 5th line he wrote ⇛(4 - 5)² = (6 - 5)² which can also be written as ⇛ (-1)² = (1)² Until this line it was correct as square of -1 is equal to square of 1 but due to this you can't say -1 = 1 and that's what he did he actually equated (-1 = 1) but wrote it in different way like this: 4 - 5 = 6 - 5 And people might have believed it true (not everyone). Hope you understand my complicated explanation😅 I tried my best to explain.
@@yogeswaran.m if you want to remove the square you must take the square root of both sides so : (4-5)² = (6-5)² ✓(4-5)² = ✓(6-5)² | 4-5 | = | 6-5 | 5-4 = 6-5 1=1 ✓✓✓
Mahanubhav (4-5)^2 nahi (5-4)^2 hoga ye aapne mistake kiya. Aapko gyat hona chahiye when we prove irrationality of √2 Or other irrational no. We do it by an argument and general observation. In Mathematics Or while proposing any theory it is checked that it should explain general observation and not that it is contradictory to common result. For e.g. While calculating time in kinematics sometimes we get. t^2=4 Hence t=+2 and -2. We know that -2 has no significance in time calculation we just neglect that result
But 4-50 So you cant delete the square because you can delete it only when the 2 values smaller ,equale 0 or when the 2values are bigger ,equale 0 Sorry for my rip english 😅
No. You can remove square but they gonna have absolute symbols “ | | “ (4-5)^2 -> |(4-5)| (6-5)^2 -> |(6-5)| Then you have |(4-5)| = |(6-5)| |-1| = |1| then 1=1.
1+1=3 In the 4th line you skipped half the action and since then it can not stand there a sign equals 2+2=5 Cannot be divided by 0 4-3-1=0 By shortening we divide both sides by 0 11 is magic 😁 Sorry for the tragic English
3:07 U can't just square -1 and 1 and then take square from them if u want to do that It should be inserted into the module (both of the sides) like this: (4-5)²=(6-5)² => |4-5|=|6-5| => |-1|=|1| =>1=1 That's it (Btw u can just do like this (a-b)²=(b-a)² so (4-5)²=(5-4)² and it's 1)
Squares can't be cancelled if the Integers are known, they should be solved out after that we can cancel i.e, (-1)² = (1)² = 1 . It can be applied only and only if the values(a,b) are unknown.
If you can prove 1 + 1 = 3 and given that 1 + 1 = 2, then 2 = 3. Take a look at this: If x^x^x^x^x... = 2 x^(x^x^x^x...) = 2 x^2 = w x = √2 And this as well: If x^x^x^x^x... = 4 x^(x^x^x^x...) = 4 x^4 = 4 x = √2 Since (√2)^(√2)^√2)^... = 2 or 4 2 = 4. This is similar to what you did. You're literally cancelling the powers without considering the other roots.
6:13 You can't cancel those two, as cancelling them would just be equal to dividing both numbers by zero (4-4) and dividing a number by zero is not possible!
About 2 + 2 = 5 The (4 - 3 - 1) = 0 => We cannot divide both sides of an equality by zero. This is one of the states of ambiguity. First we need to clear this ambiguity and then divide. When you have 4(4 - 3 - 1) = 5(4 - 3 - 1) => clear (4 - 3 - 1) from both sides of the equation, means, you divided 4(4 - 3 - 1) /(4 - 3 - 1) = 5(4 - 3 - 1)/(4 - 3 - 1) => (4 x 0)/0 = (5 x 0)/0 Zero when divided by zero in the denominator means ambiguity
U can't just eliminate those squares, because elimination of squares means you're applying a root on the numbers, but, as we know in mathematics, you can't apply the root on negative numbers, as you did with (4-5)... You'll have to use absolute symbols, but you'll end up returning to 1=1
i might be wrong but u actually can.... lets say a square= b square we can say a and b are equal because they have the same square and similarly lets say (a-b)whole square = (c-b) whole square we can say by looking at this that (a-b)= (c-b)because if we take the square of one side to the other, it becomes square root. this proves a and c are the same number when they arent.... and might just be the negative version of the same number. i think he isnt actually wrong... he has made the entire equation quadratic which is why there are 2 values on the lhs and rhs. one is 1+1 = 3 and the other is 1+1 = 0. idk what absolute symbols are but what he has done is definitely not wrong even though the root of -1 is an imaginary number if we take it in the form of variables we get this as the answer. he doesnt break any rule of mathematics but you are not supposed to make an equation quadratic if its possible to solve it like this. we could use the same logic and make it a cubic equation which will give 3 values for 1+1
(a-b)^2 = (c-d)^2 doesnt mean a-b = c-d you forgot the case that a-b or c-d is a minus number which multiply by itself still equals the opposite of the number multiply by that one too
Actually anyone think that he's cancelling the square without considering the negative root and deceiving the viewers? Consecutive numbers (0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 and so on) are differed by 1 and this is the definition of Arabic numerals
Sir I watched your video. Apparently there was no mistake. But according to mathematics if we are adding or subtracting something from the LHS then we should do the same to the RHS. But I think although your net result was right the LHS and RHS was unbalanced eventually. But it was a great video. 👍👍
Okey anybody realize here the problem was when he brought in that formula ??? Then everything went side wayz 🤔 suriously this guy cant use that formula if x and y are difrent either side of the (=) 😂😂😂idioto
3:09 I got him, there he did a mistake. He took the square root from both sides, but the thing under square on the right side should be under module, because the result of square root cant be below zero (math rule, y'know). (P. S. sorry for bad English)
If I write this 1+1=3 in my exam ,my teacher kick me out from the exam hall, I know sir your mathematics 1+1=3 is also correct, but for small students 1+1=2 only😢😢😢
Bro when we cancel squares we immediately use the sign of modulus, on both LHS and RHS , that's the most basic law you forgot in mathematics. I suggest you to Qualify your high school ASAP.
The step right after taking the square roots on both sides ... 4 - 5 = 6 - 5 means - 1 = + 1 This was where the rules of arithmetic broke down, at 3:10 And at 6:01 the expression in brackets (4 - 3 - 1) evaluates to 0. Cancelling (4 - 3 - 1) on both sides is the same as dividing by 0 on both sides. Division by 0 is not allowed by the rules of arithmetic.
When you cancel the squares both positive and negative value needs to be taken, there is not any contradiction in this, you just need to do it correctly
Basically sqrt( x^2) is |x| and not x so sqrt((4-5)^2) is |4-5| and not 4-5 hence the error So it is always convenient to write (x-y)^2 such that x>y so that there is no error and relieves us from considering modulus .
6:25 In the second proof (2+2=5) in the third step when you took 4 from a side and 5 from another, in the remaining brackets the sum of numbers were equal to 0 and therefore: 4(0)=5(0)=0 And 0s can’t cancel out due to mathematical logic (unidentified)
When 2nd question ur don't follow rules at 4 th step. (4-3-1=0 & 4-3-1=0) so zero divide by zero that value going to be infinity ..so we can't divide that case
a comprehensive breakdown of different mathematical frameworks and methods that can demonstrate that 1 + 1 = 2 1+1=2: Basic Arithmetic Integer Addition: 1 + 1 = 2 1+1=2 Decimal System: 1.0 + 1.0 = 2.0 1.0+1.0=2.0 Fractional Addition: 2 2 + 2 2 = 4 2 = 2 2 2 + 2 2 = 2 4 =2 Negative and Positive Numbers: ( 1 ) + ( 1 ) = 2 (as 1 is usually positive) (1)+(1)=2(as 1 is usually positive) Modular Arithmetic Modulo Addition (mod 3): ( 1 + 1 ) m o d
3 = 2 m o d
3 = 2 (1+1)mod3=2mod3=2 Set Theory Cardinality of Sets: If we define two sets: A = { a } , B = { b } ⇒ ∣ A ∣ + ∣ B ∣ = 1 + 1 = 2 A={a},B={b}⇒∣A∣+∣B∣=1+1=2 Binary Addition Binary Representation: In binary, 1 1 is represented as 1 2 1 2 : 1 2 + 1 2 = 1 0 2 = 2 10 1 2 +1 2 =10 2 =2 10
Number Theory Peano Axioms: Using Peano's axioms, we define 1 1 and 2 2 in terms of natural numbers: Define 0 0 as the first natural number. Define 1 1 as the successor of 0 0, S ( 0 ) S(0). Define 2 2 as the successor of 1 1, S ( 1 ) = S ( S ( 0 ) ) S(1)=S(S(0)). Therefore, 1 + 1 = S ( 0 ) + S ( 0 ) = S ( S ( 0 ) ) = 2 1+1=S(0)+S(0)=S(S(0))=2. Algebra Using Variables: Let x = 1 x=1: x + x = 2 x setting x = 1 ⇒ 2 x = 2 x+x=2xsetting x=1⇒2x=2 Geometry Geometric Representation: If you represent 1 1 as a unit length (e.g., a line segment), then placing two segments together gives you a segment of length 2 2. Calculus Limit Approach: Using limits, you could express it as: lim x → 1 ( x + x ) = lim x → 1 2 x = 2 x→1 lim (x+x)= x→1 lim 2x=2 Derivative Perspective: Consider the function f ( x ) = x + x f(x)=x+x: The derivative f ′ ( x ) = 2 f ′ (x)=2. Evaluating at x = 1 x=1 yields f ( 1 ) = 2 f(1)=2. Complex Numbers Complex Addition: Treating 1 1 as a complex number: ( 1 + 0 i ) + ( 1 + 0 i ) = 2 + 0 i (1+0i)+(1+0i)=2+0i Exponential Functions Exponential Notation: Expressed in terms of exponentials: e ln ( 1 ) + e ln ( 1 ) = e ln ( 2 ) = 2 e ln(1) +e ln(1) =e ln(2) =2 Logarithmic Approach Using Logarithms: If you take log ( 2 ) log(2) in base 10 or e: 1 0 log ( 2 ) = 2 10 log(2) =2 Combinatorics Counting Combinations: The number of ways to choose 2 items from a pool of 2 items can be computed as: ( 2 2 ) + ( 2 1 ) + ( 2 0 ) = 1 + 2 + 1 = 4 ( 2 2 )+( 1 2 )+( 0 2 )=1+2+1=4 ini But combining just two $1 + 1 = 2$ remains valid. Conclusion Regardless of the approach-be it basic addition, number theory, set theory, or calculus-the conclusion remains consistent in standard arithmetic: 1 + 1 = 2 1+1=2
This is not the only case where such things happen in mathematics. While solving equations (especially in more than 50% problems of trigonometric equations), most of the people break rules in steps involved. For example if one writes cosθ = 1/secθ, he/she must take care that θ should not be odd integral multiple of π/2 (or simply θ is not 90° for beginners).
Apart form what my fellow mathematics professors have pointed out as error, I saw it fitting to add that this guy is grossly wrong by considering that 2=3 and or 4=5 : at this point it's a mathematical contradiction. Two distinct objects say a, b will be equal to three distinct objects say a, b, c .. ie a,b != a, b, c
a²=b² then a=b is not always true it may be also a= -b For ex :- 2²=2² here 2=2 i.e a=b But 2² =( -2)² here 2≠-2 i.e a≠b here a= -b If you like my explanation please reply me Moreover 0 ➗ 0≠1 this wrong concept is used in second Sol.
когда мы вычисляем корень из х², то х надо писать под модулем |x|. таким образом 5 строка будет выглядеть как |4 - 5| = |6 - 5| => |-1| = |1| => 1 = 1. это правило надо помнить, чтобы не возникало таких "странных" уравнений))
In 1st , if you take root on both sides then absolute values come , you cannot directly cut roots . So , this is the mistake . I always like you videos. Thanku for this video .🙏🙏❤️❤️❤️❤️
@@rahulkumar__108this is not a question ,,Its a basic rule which u don't need to byheart U just need to know this concept "यदि आप दो समान चिह्न संख्याओं को गुणा करते हैं, तो result हमेशा positive होता है "
*First one: (4-5)^2 is positive and not negative one. When taking square roots, you must take the positive square root.* *Second one: 4-3-1 is 0 and you can't divide by 0 because then you get that 2+2=5.*
@Mr D. What if you add one to the -1 in the parenthesis on the LHS to cancel it out. But what you so to one side you must do to the other, so you add one to the -1 on the RHS. Then you get 4(4-3)=5(4-3) which equals 4(1)=5(1) which is the same as 4=5. I'm not saying I'm right, just tell me how I'm wrong.
I’ll prove that it equals 2, let’s say I have 1 sweet in my left hand and one in my right, I put both of the sweets in my left hand (1+1) and now I have two because I can’t just spawn a sweet
I have a chocolate bar, I cut it in the correct way and I have a chocolate bar and a chocolate piece, now I take another chocolate bar and I have 3 choco pieces. 1 = 2 +1 = 3 = 1+1
there is a trick a rule of (a-b)^2 when b>a like (4-5)^2 and the actual under root is -(4-5) and because of square/root rule the possible values of eq. can be +ve or -ve mr. matescium ignore the rule but it is ignorable in variable functions and if we deeply know the rules and check the equation it is going wrong in 5=>point hens the equation is unproper( ^_^)
![Why you didn't learn tetration in school[Tetration]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Ea1_1aVfwl4/mqdefault.jpg)
3:04 We can't cancel the powers. Cancelling the powers means taking square root, and we always have to take modulus after taking square root
All the best bhaiya ji
@@Self-is-UltimateReality thanks bhai
no. u can by adding roots on both sides
its basically balancing
@@pros.sherwin8194 what do you mean by adding roots?
For those who are still wondering (1+1=3) why this happened is because In the step where he cancelled the squares on both the sides he did not use the concept of modulus. While taking square root on both sides the value obtained will be inside a mod sign.
Ex: we have [√(x)²] will not be equal to x but will be equal to | x |
2+2 is fish
1+1 is window t@@jenniferfergerson3949
😂😂 how in the world is 2+2 fish ?😂
@@THEGOATOFANIME53622 + a backwards 2 I think
he is wrong at the fourth step, when he removes the square
Leaving aside the square root step, I like how he uses 1+1 = 2 to get 1+1=3 😂
Absolutely right
xD
Lbird itine born again
@@sayyedzama3648 yes because he's breaking the rules it makes sense
Ikr
In the 1st proof i.e 1+1=3, you should not cancel out the square of a negative number on one side and square of a positive number in another side.3:04
In the 2nd proof i.e 2+2=5, you should not cancel out the expression whose sum adds up to zero(0) in any equation. 6:08
You shouldn't ignore the negative roots. You should put x in √(x²) into a absolute-value and reach a meaningful equation.
If x^2 = a
The x= +a^(1/2) or -a^(1/2)
In general there is no problem in neglecting the negative root , but in some cases we discard the positive roots. Actually , it is not a function.
F(a) = b , F(a) = c where b =\= c implies F is a Mapping but not a function.
Ok
Серьезно!!!
@@esseandessence4421 urmom
@@esseandessence4421 smart man
@@LORD-px9tv 9
The issue arises at 3:01 because after taking the square root on both sides of the equation, the result needs to be an absolute value. Therefore, the correct step should be |4-5| = |6-5|, meaning 5-4 = 6-5.
هنا تم تلاعب و وهمنا بالوصول إلى برهان الصحيح.
Plus he forgot the rest of the equation the (2×4x5) and the (2x6x5)
Bravo!
@@DaUseless1no he did not he just use an identity (x+y)² = x²+y² - 2xy
@@dragonyt4046 just fun bro
Math developers: Sorry for the inconvenience, we will patch this bug in the next update.
Lol
Lmao 😭
@@username_19388 you cried to death right
This comment is everything.
Lol😂
In the first case, 1+1 = 3, you reached the following equation:
There you removed the parenthesis power from both sides. while on the right side you can write (4-5) or (5-4) which means 4-5=-1 or 5-4=1 and on the left side you can write 5-6=-1 or Write 6-5=1. In other words, the square root of both sides has two answers: 1 and -1.
You deliberately ignored the -1 from the left side and set it equal to 1 on the right.
This is where the path to the wrong conclusion begins.
Yes, the fact that (-1)^2=(1)^2 does not mean that -1=1. Also it is true root of G^2 is both -G and G!
Це відео для тих хто погано вчився у школі.
LOL 5 minutes ago@@yurchenko_vadim
Sorry, I can't read Russia@@yurchenko_vadim
@@georgesmith2667 it is not Russian, but Ukrainian. When I was reading the comments, there was an opportunity to automatically translate comments written in English or some other language into Ukrainian, so I wrote a comment thinking that you would also press the button and translate it into your language. And I wrote in the previous comment that this video is for those who did not study well at school.
It doesn't. Your formula is broken because you have two different values for x. On arrow line 3 you have x=4 y=5 on left side, then x=6 y=5 on right hand. The 6 should be a "z" "a" etc. so in principle your formula becomes (x-y)2-2xy=(z-y)2-2zy. So here you are considering "1" as a variable value, so then of course it could be equal to 3. But this logic you have shown above does not break the rules of mathematics.
Bro x can have two different values in nature
He likes Math and Physics, Math and Physics doesn't like him
@@hockeyworld818 read it again😁
You fool we can take rhs as x and y and lhs as a and b than no problem
in which class do u read ? xD
even though if it was different values , you can see (4-5)=(6-5) and square on each of them .... after solution we will get -1 square=1 square which is again equal to the starting (1=1)
He himself proved, maths rules are universal, hence can't be defied.....
Hence proved!!!
OH YEA WHAT ABOUT THIS
1+1=11
This is cap because you cant get from 1 to three because there are infinite decimal numbers In between 1 and 3 like 1.1
Second step is wrong .........ri8 one should be (16+25)-40 = (36+25)-60 ....Simple rules of mathematics
@@artix755 also, go take a pen (1) , go take another pen (1), if you join them, another pen wont just randomly appear…
In second calculation.
4(4-3-1)=5(4-3-1)
We can not cancel (4-3-1) from both sides, becoz the value of the term is zero and "0÷0" *is not defined* not "1" .
For better understanding
0=0
3×0=4×0
If we zero from both sides
Then
3=4
So thats why we cant say 0÷0 is 1
Its just not defined.
Absolutely nonsense... Wrong calculations...
the step where the squares are removed is where you take the square root of both sides, but the square root of a value has two possible values (one positive, and one negative). when the signs are taken into account you resolve the issues.
In the second calculation your cancellation step involves dividing by the value within the brackets (4-3-1), however given 4-3-1 is zero you are dividing both side by zero. The problem is dividing any integer by zero gives the result of infinity (so the correct result would be infinity = infinity).
You are going against basic BODMAS (Brackets, Order, Division, Multiplication, Addition, Subtraction) rule or PEMDAS (Parentheses, Exponents, Multiplication, Division, Addition, Subtraction) rule that is why you are getting the wrong result. In your first 2 examples brackets should be solved first.
He wrote in the tiltle breaking the rules of maths
@@theenjoyfullshorts188 at 4:22 he asked anyone to comment where he had made an error
Bodmas is brackets order division multiplication addition subtraction
@@audio4642 yes right thanks, I have updated. I think my point makes sense
in my point of view its good to say proof 2≠3 instead of you said 1+1=3 you have to showed that 2≠3
You can't cancel the squares, it's just for our convenience. The importance of brackets is the base of mathematics. I did the same mistake, but in another equation in class 8th, then after wondering for hours, I found out that this is the wrong way.
Exactly what I'm saying, you CANNOT cancel the squares.
Ya same with me
breaking the rules with wrong methods,first learn every concept of maths then come to make it wrong, okk my son
*When a 6th grader watches this be like*
@@Suprxme_CoD he will amazed how this happened
3:12; he just canceled the squares so if we just solve what's inside the bracket we get (-1)^2 = (1)^2 which is true since the square of a negative number is positive but after canceling the squares he wrote -1 = 1 which is not true and if we take the square root of (-1)^2 we get 1 so the correct thing after 3:12 would be 1 = 1 which is true
Yes
Yes. His whole point is depending on this very wrong deduction. And he just ignored the most important part of square root.
he should have put the absolute value
Yes you are right you can't cancel power like that
Damn! It's very true!
(a-b)^2 = (b-a)^2 whereas (a-b) is not equal to (b-a); so you proved in a wrong way.
Nice...m
6:24 I apologize if my previous responses were unclear. You are absolutely correct. Dividing by zero is undefined in mathematics, and that's where the error in your original manipulation occurs. When you divided both sides by (4-3-1), you were effectively dividing by zero, which is not a valid operation. This is why the conclusion that 4 = 5 is incorrect.
Thank you for clarifying, and I apologize for any confusion caused by my previous responses. If you have more questions or need further assistance, please feel free to ask.
Bro copied from chatgpt 💀
@@balck_ 💀💀
bro really thought we wouldn’t notice the essence of chat gpt here 😂
Exponents don't cancel. You would have to take the square root of each side, which then makes each side ±. If you want to simplify it you could take the absolute value of each side: |4-5|=|6-5| => |-1|=|1| => 1=1
true
L anime use normal pfps
a²=b²=>a=b is false then next step he wrote -1 = 1 hahaha
(4-5)^2 = (6-5)^2
Does not imply: 4-5 = 6-5 rather what it does imply is that:
|(4-5)| = |(6-5)|
=> |-1| = |1|
=> 1 = 1
So 1 + 1 = 2 is the only possible outcome and 1 + 1 = 3 is not possible.
Thx a lot bro
Ok i am 9 and i do yr 7 work and ppl like u saying dis stuff me: boi what did u just say
yeap.but was a good clickbait😂watched the hole vid
@@oneandonlymicrowave im 9,9 im almost 10
Not “0”? 😂
I have gud proof: 1 dad + 1 mom = 1 child = 3 people
1 dad plus 1 mom pregnant with twins = 2 children=4 people 🧐🧐🧐
@@michaelmoorer1523 we ignore that
That's 1+1+1.
But if they stay united could that still be 1?
1 dad+milk=no dad
(4-5)²=(6-5)²
RHS=√(6-5)²=+(6-5) or -(6-5) Only one value can be correct which is -(6-5)
Same case in LHS
If LHS is (4-5) RHS must be -(6-5)
Whaaaa
Say whaaaaaaaa
I had a stroke reading that
Witch spelling is wrong
Correct spelling is WHICH
@@gorlajyothi4452 thanks
2:42 can also be as (5-4)^2
If you remove the squares +- term is used so that the product varies
Taking positive and negative term differently gives you different answers out of them you get (1, something else)you can't directly consider it as true
he didn't divide numbers that have the same value, that's it
OMG..🤯
This is already a silly proof , anyone can do this , ahhh
@@hatimwarrior Then why didn't you comment before him..? 🥴
Your answer is comment is best of all
When you remove the squares, you have to calculate the absolute value of the sub-radical number
o que isso afeta o grêmio?
Dunno what you just said but I agree.
The statement “1 + 1 = 2” may seem obvious, but proving it rigorously within a mathematical framework requires foundational principles and logical definitions. Here’s an outline of how it’s proven in formal mathematics:
1. Foundations in Set Theory and Logic
In advanced mathematics, proofs start with basic elements like set theory and formal logic, which define numbers and their properties rigorously. The work of Giuseppe Peano laid out the foundations with the Peano axioms, which define the natural numbers (1, 2, 3, …) and their relationships.
2. Peano’s Axioms
Peano’s axioms include these key points:
• There is a first number, often denoted as 1.
• Every number has a unique “successor,” representing the next natural number.
• Numbers can be defined by these successive applications.
For instance, we define 2 as the successor of 1. So:
• 1 is the base number.
• 2 is defined as the number that follows 1 (the successor of 1).
3. Defining Addition
Using these definitions, we can define addition. The addition of two numbers  and  (using Peano’s definitions) can be seen as counting forward in steps. Specifically:
•  is defined as the successor of .
•  is defined as finding the successor of 1.
Since the successor of 1 is defined as 2 by Peano’s construction, we conclude:

4. Formal Proof in “Principia Mathematica”
In the early 20th century, mathematicians Alfred North Whitehead and Bertrand Russell proved  in their monumental work, Principia Mathematica. Their proof takes hundreds of pages to build up from the most basic logical principles.
The statement  ultimately depends on:
• The definitions of the numbers 1 and 2,
• The construction of addition as defined by successor operations,
• Logical consistency within the framework of set theory and Peano’s axioms.
Though we can see it intuitively, the rigor of proving  lies in confirming that this follows logically from the defined rules and structures of mathematics.
When removing the squares u have to put +-. For ex: ( (-1)^2 = (1)^2 ) this equation is correct, now if you remove the square u can't say -1 = 1 . But say | -1 | = | 1 | so that the negative is removed so 1 = 1 ...
Now for (4-5)^2 = (6-5)^2 it's the same concept. Removing the squares: |4-5| = |6-5|
To simplify it further: | -1 | = | 1 |, which is just 1=1
I don’t know who u are, what u are and where u are but i will find u and i will get u a job to Nasa
@@GjigantiChannel 🤣🤣
There were two roots when you eliminated the square .there you can shift one square to other side and then use a²-b²=(a-b)(a+b) where a-b is actually a imaginary root in this case while a+b is a perfect root which satisfies the rules of mathematics and makes us feel what we studies was not wrong. Read it fully if you want to know the truth
My man, u got the first
Let me tell u about 2nd
He took 0=0
But in actuality
0/0 = it can be infinity and also it can be any number
Bro some people think it is true 🤣 from where he cancle the roots from both sides.
😐
Nerd lol
@@Deaddeyess another fact is that
0/oo =0 (oo = infinity)
According to step 2, root of something is always "+" or "-" we cannot just cancel the squares like that. And also we can write (a-b)^2 as (b-a)^2. If you solve the problem by putting (b-a)^2 then you'll get 1+1 = 2 as the answer... and in the title you have written "breaking the rules of mathematics" so, for this video, it's okay
I definetly understand u 😢
My head hurts listening to his voice as well as his misleading math
Ok
I realize that things gone wrong because of eliminating power 2 ,but i don't khow what the reason,your explanation make me clear.
can you know the reason why 2+2=5 in the second solving.
Exactly... I had the same catch of mistake... "+Or-" in either side is cumpolsary
Let's go through the series of mathematical operations step by step to identify the errors:
1. The initial statement "1 + 1 = 3" is boxed at the top as the proposition being proven.
2. They start with a true statement "1 = 1" to begin the manipulation.
3. The following step, "41 - 40 = 61 - 60," is correct as both sides equal 1.
4. They then proceed to "16 + 25 - 40 = 36 + 25 - 60." This step is valid because 16 + 25 = 41 and 36 + 25 = 61, with both sides subtracting the same amount, resulting in 1 = 1.
5. The next line, "4^2 + 5^2 - 2*4.5 = 6^2 + 5^2 - 2*6.5," is also correct. Here they're expanding the squared terms (4^2 and 6^2) and including the middle term of the binomial expansion which would indeed cancel out to give 1 = 1 if the terms were correct.
6. But the operation that follows, "(4 - 5)^2 = (6 - 5)^2," is incorrect. They've incorrectly simplified the previous step. What should have happened here is that the left side would be 4^2 - 2*4*5 + 5^2 and the right side would be 6^2 - 2*6*5 + 5^2, and you cannot just cancel out the middle terms independently since they are not like terms.
7. Proceeding from the false equivalence "(4 - 5)^2 = (6 - 5)^2," they correctly calculate that (4 - 5)^2 = (-1)^2 = 1 and (6 - 5)^2 = 1^2 = 1. However, this is based on the previous incorrect simplification.
8. The next line "4 - 5 = 6 - 5" incorrectly assumes that if two squares are equal, then their roots must be equal, without considering that squaring is not a one-to-one function. Squaring eliminates negative signs, so while the squares may be equal, the original numbers may have been negatives of each other.
9. They then incorrectly cancel out the "-5" from both sides, which is not valid algebraic manipulation.
10. From there, they reach "4 = 6," which is obviously incorrect, but then they add "+5" to both sides, maintaining the incorrect equality.
11. Dividing by 2 on both sides, they get "2 = 3," which is a continuation of the error.
12. They conclude with "1 + 1 = 3," circled at the bottom, based on the erroneous steps above.
The most glaring mathematical error is the step from (4 - 5)^2 to 4 - 5, assuming that because the squares are equal, the bases must be equal as well. This overlooks the fact that both positive and negative numbers yield the same square, so this does not hold when removing the square. The subsequent steps are based on this incorrect simplification, leading to the incorrect conclusion.
In first part, if x²=y²
Doesn't mean x is always equals to y so you can't simply cancel power,
They will only be equal if x and y both are positive or both negative.
In second part what you did was dividing 0/0 which is also not defined.
because 4-3-1 = 0. You can't cancel 0 from both sides that way.
You are bhuskhonda aadmi
108
If powers are the same then it's correct
@@passykiraboIf you're talking about the first part, then if you look carefully in 5th line he wrote
⇛(4 - 5)² = (6 - 5)²
which can also be written as
⇛ (-1)² = (1)²
Until this line it was correct as square of -1 is equal to square of 1 but due to this you can't say -1 = 1
and that's what he did he actually equated (-1 = 1) but wrote it in different way
like this: 4 - 5 = 6 - 5
And people might have believed it true (not everyone).
Hope you understand my complicated explanation😅
I tried my best to explain.
This is what happens when you miss the basics of mathematics and think yourself as mathematical genius 🤣
Yes lol😂😼
Bro he's making it just for fun
But he seems serious.
@@hasibulislamshanto143 ya he serius
He seriusly making a joke
When A "Mathematics Genius" Wanna Take A Challenge
(4-5)²=(6-5)²
That means : (4-5)×(4-5) = (6-5)×(6-5)
so you can't remove the square because
(4-5)≠(6-5)
Bro both square can be remove
I don't know but...
If you have 1 paper and another person give you 1 more paper then will it be 3 paper?
@@yogeswaran.m if you want to remove the square you must take the square root of both sides so :
(4-5)² = (6-5)²
✓(4-5)² = ✓(6-5)²
| 4-5 | = | 6-5 |
5-4 = 6-5
1=1 ✓✓✓
Bro there is one another property if power are equal then we write only base.
A^3=B^3 or (any other Higher power) A=B
Mahanubhav (4-5)^2 nahi (5-4)^2 hoga ye aapne mistake kiya.
Aapko gyat hona chahiye when we prove irrationality of √2 Or other irrational no. We do it by an argument and general observation.
In Mathematics Or while proposing any theory it is checked that it should explain general observation and not that it is contradictory to common result. For e.g.
While calculating time in kinematics sometimes we get.
t^2=4
Hence t=+2 and -2.
We know that -2 has no significance in time calculation we just neglect that result
Someone should report this abuse of the square root.
Legends are shock after seeing this calculation 😱
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
2:45 use equation correctly
But 4-50
So you cant delete the square because you can delete it only when the 2 values smaller ,equale 0 or when the 2values are bigger ,equale 0
Sorry for my rip english 😅
No. You can remove square but they gonna have absolute symbols “ | | “ (4-5)^2 -> |(4-5)| (6-5)^2 -> |(6-5)|
Then you have |(4-5)| = |(6-5)| |-1| = |1| then 1=1.
yeh so there's the problem
√a with a
@@manow_ch7918 respect bro
1+1=3
In the 4th line you skipped half the action and since then it can not stand there a sign equals
2+2=5
Cannot be divided by 0
4-3-1=0
By shortening we divide both sides by 0
11 is magic 😁
Sorry for the tragic English
2:35 begins the failure. Xs and Ys in both sides aren't the same in value, so they're not giving the right equation.
3:07 U can't just square -1 and 1 and then take square from them if u want to do that It should be inserted into the module (both of the sides) like this: (4-5)²=(6-5)²
=> |4-5|=|6-5|
=> |-1|=|1|
=>1=1
That's it
(Btw u can just do like this (a-b)²=(b-a)² so (4-5)²=(5-4)² and it's 1)
😂
@@kaprino did I say something stupid? Please correct if I did
He is stupid.., he need to learn math first… he is using as what he likes… bogus
3:05 if u want to get rid of powers u need to put sqrt on both sides which will result in the left 1 (4-5) that is -1 to transform into 1 cuz of ABS.
@@takshilsharma4036 Nah
there's no minus nember inside the root ( rules )
Squares can't be cancelled if the Integers are known, they should be solved out after that we can cancel i.e, (-1)² = (1)² = 1 . It can be applied only and only if the values(a,b) are unknown.
They can it doesn't matter
1+1=3?no
Also if (a,b) are known.... We can't cancel the squares..... We should take ±. Then it will obey mathematics.....
If you can prove 1 + 1 = 3 and given that 1 + 1 = 2, then 2 = 3.
Take a look at this:
If x^x^x^x^x... = 2
x^(x^x^x^x...) = 2
x^2 = w
x = √2
And this as well:
If x^x^x^x^x... = 4
x^(x^x^x^x...) = 4
x^4 = 4
x = √2
Since (√2)^(√2)^√2)^... = 2 or 4
2 = 4.
This is similar to what you did.
You're literally cancelling the powers without considering the other roots.
6:13
You can't cancel those two, as cancelling them would just be equal to dividing both numbers by zero (4-4) and dividing a number by zero is not possible!
Divide both by (4-3-1)
It's a good trick but you can't take off the squared on (4-5) and (6-5) as it's - 1=1
You can't it's not possible in math unless you make your answers squared root but he didn't
His was -1 = 1,so it doesn't match up
When your teacher testing you what is 1 + 1 is...
Me: 3
Teacher: why
Me: *struggling to explain*
About 2 + 2 = 5
The (4 - 3 - 1) = 0 =>
We cannot divide both sides of an equality by zero. This is one of the states of ambiguity.
First we need to clear this ambiguity and then divide.
When you have 4(4 - 3 - 1) = 5(4 - 3 - 1) => clear (4 - 3 - 1) from both sides of the equation, means, you divided
4(4 - 3 - 1) /(4 - 3 - 1) = 5(4 - 3 - 1)/(4 - 3 - 1) => (4 x 0)/0 = (5 x 0)/0
Zero when divided by zero in the denominator means ambiguity
U can't just eliminate those squares, because elimination of squares means you're applying a root on the numbers, but, as we know in mathematics, you can't apply the root on negative numbers, as you did with (4-5)...
You'll have to use absolute symbols, but you'll end up returning to 1=1
Yeah u r right,,
also,
1=1
√1= √1
-1 = 1 (√1= 1, -1)
This is how this math creates the problem🤣
@@theterminator9393 but it's more correct to right
√1^2= 1 *OR* √1^2= -1
i might be wrong but u actually can....
lets say a square= b square
we can say a and b are equal because they have the same square and similarly lets say
(a-b)whole square = (c-b) whole square
we can say by looking at this that (a-b)= (c-b)because if we take the square of one side to the other, it becomes square root.
this proves a and c are the same number when they arent.... and might just be the negative version of the same number. i think he isnt actually wrong... he has made the entire equation quadratic which is why there are 2 values on the lhs and rhs. one is 1+1 = 3 and the other is 1+1 = 0. idk what absolute symbols are but what he has done is definitely not wrong even though the root of -1 is an imaginary number if we take it in the form of variables we get this as the answer. he doesnt break any rule of mathematics but you are not supposed to make an equation quadratic if its possible to solve it like this. we could use the same logic and make it a cubic equation which will give 3 values for 1+1
square root of a negative number is possible in the COMPLEX NUMBER SYSTEM. The notation "i" is used.
According to bodmas, bracket is first . However, you can't divide the square that is ^2.
(4-5)^2=(6-5)^2
- 1^2=1^2
-1(-1)=1(1)
1=1.
mistaken in the fourth step he can write 4²+5² as 5²+4² and the next step would be (5-4)² this is the correct method of that
Powers over numbers can't be cancelled . That's the point you missed and didn't follow . So you've been able to prove 1=3
3:04 fatal mistake. Can't cancel power
(-1)² = (1)² but -1 ≠ 1
Teacher:what is 1+1=?
Me:hard question, its 3.
Teacher:Huh, what are you talking about? Prove it its 3.
Me:
"BECAUSE OF THE GOVERNMENT-" I can never not think about this while watching this video
1996 omar
Chill bro 1+1 is not 3 he did wrong way the he made left side other way and right side other way left was (5-4)**2 he did just wrong way
And **2 can't be minus so (4-5)**2 is not number
@@mariorobles7924 why
@@raghav2496 iLiAS iLiAS F0RTNlTE adonnés RUclips 😀🤣🤣🤣
(a-b)^2 = (c-d)^2 doesnt mean a-b = c-d you forgot the case that a-b or c-d is a minus number which multiply by itself still equals the opposite of the number multiply by that one too
Step (4-5)^2 = (6-5)^2 become 4-5 = 6-5 is wrong. It shouldbe l 4-5 l = l 6-5 l.
X^2 = Y^2 => X = Y or X = - Y choose one condition which is true.
Interesting! Even tho you've made a mistake on purpose, it still kinda makes us rethink maths😁
When dealing with an equation with no variables,you cannot shift stuff from left hand side to right hand side and vice versa.
you can
5 + 4 = 10 - 1
is the same as
5 = 10 - 1 - 4
In the first case you must use absolute value, in the second one you can't divide by 0
Tui faul player
Its his proof, i knew you cant divide by 0 but thats his proof
Actually anyone think that he's cancelling the square without considering the negative root and deceiving the viewers? Consecutive numbers (0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 and so on) are differed by 1 and this is the definition of Arabic numerals
Sir I watched your video. Apparently there was no mistake. But according to mathematics if we are adding or subtracting something from the LHS then we should do the same to the RHS. But I think although your net result was right the LHS and RHS was unbalanced eventually. But it was a great video. 👍👍
There is a big mistake ...
Okey anybody realize here the problem was when he brought in that formula ??? Then everything went side wayz 🤔 suriously this guy cant use that formula if x and y are difrent either side of the (=) 😂😂😂idioto
There is a mistake.... while we are using (a-b)² formula ... There must be "a>b"
@@KesavSBI not true.
(a-b)²=a²-2ab+b²
(2-3)²=2²-2×2×3+3²
=4-12+9
=-8+9
=1
3:09 I got him, there he did a mistake. He took the square root from both sides, but the thing under square on the right side should be under module, because the result of square root cant be below zero (math rule, y'know). (P. S. sorry for bad English)
If I write this 1+1=3 in my exam ,my teacher kick me out from the exam hall, I know sir your mathematics 1+1=3 is also correct, but for small students 1+1=2 only😢😢😢
For me it's true, sis😢😢
Ap kite years k ho?
True ;-;
@@btsblkpik5650 Hlo I am also Blink and Army💜
Do you like Kdrama??
@@Kamalbhangu121 not much but yah I like little bit😊😊
Bro when we cancel squares we immediately use the sign of modulus, on both LHS and RHS , that's the most basic law you forgot in mathematics.
I suggest you to Qualify your high school ASAP.
He knows it's wrong
6:07 doing this you are dividing everything by (4 - 3 - 1), so you are dividing by 0 and that's impossible.
I can hear Sheldon Cooper's condescending laugh😂😂
2:21 "eeks! mynus why? Holy sqare."
The step right after taking the square roots on both sides ...
4 - 5 = 6 - 5 means
- 1 = + 1
This was where the rules of arithmetic broke down, at 3:10
And at 6:01 the expression in brackets (4 - 3 - 1) evaluates to 0.
Cancelling (4 - 3 - 1) on both sides is the same as dividing by 0 on both sides.
Division by 0 is not allowed by the rules of arithmetic.
When you cancel the squares both positive and negative value needs to be taken, there is not any contradiction in this, you just need to do it correctly
Yep exactly
2
2 main rules were broken, but still amazing! X should only have 1 value, and step 6 uses the distributive property wrong (for the 1 + 1 = 3 eqasion)
Poda lose 😝😝😝😝😝
@@k2born574malayali 👀😜
a lot more than 2
when you took square root both sides, they should open with both plus minus sign. Because as we know that both 2 and -2 have same square i.e 4.
03:06 You've just failed mathematics. Congratulations. Back to linear algebra for you.
(4-3-1)÷(4-3-1)= (0÷0) ...As (0÷0) is undefined...So the mistake occurred
As a Brazilian and understanding everything and the entire line of reasoning, am I evolving? 😂🙌🏻
I'm Brazilian too
Sou indiano
Tbm sou br
explica ai brother, eu até entendi mas nao percebi o erro
Kkkkkk 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
Basically sqrt( x^2) is |x| and not x so sqrt((4-5)^2) is |4-5| and not 4-5 hence the error
So it is always convenient to write (x-y)^2 such that x>y so that there is no error and relieves us from considering modulus .
But |4-5| = |-1| = 1
It's only an error when |±x| = -x
6:25
In the second proof (2+2=5) in the third step when you took 4 from a side and 5 from another, in the remaining brackets the sum of numbers were equal to 0 and therefore:
4(0)=5(0)=0
And 0s can’t cancel out due to mathematical logic (unidentified)
Him : explain hard way
AFTER 3 DAYS LATER
Him: so that's how thanks for watc
Me:WAIT
Him: why
Me: 1+1=11
People: OHHHHHHHHHH
W + T = F 0:52
Thats why every time my parents says don't miss the maths class
When 2nd question ur don't follow rules at 4 th step.
(4-3-1=0 & 4-3-1=0) so zero divide by zero that value going to be infinity ..so we can't divide that case
when you remove the squares from both sides, you must make sure that each side is a positive root or each is negative.
1. When you remove squares , you are supposed to take mod on both sides.
2. You cannot cancel two zeroes from hoth sides.
Not mod, you need the absolute value.
| -1 |= | 1 | = 1
sqrt(x^2) = abs(x)
3:08
We can’t cancel squares (that’s the mistake)
-1 and +1. Both the square values gives 1. So root should have 2 values.
Yeah I also think that one 💝
a comprehensive breakdown of different mathematical frameworks and methods that can demonstrate that
1
+
1
=
2
1+1=2:
Basic Arithmetic
Integer Addition:
1
+
1
=
2
1+1=2
Decimal System:
1.0
+
1.0
=
2.0
1.0+1.0=2.0
Fractional Addition:
2
2
+
2
2
=
4
2
=
2
2
2
+
2
2
=
2
4
=2
Negative and Positive Numbers:
(
1
)
+
(
1
)
=
2
(as
1
is usually positive)
(1)+(1)=2(as 1 is usually positive)
Modular Arithmetic
Modulo Addition (mod 3):
(
1
+
1
)
m
o
d
3
=
2
m
o
d
3
=
2
(1+1)mod3=2mod3=2
Set Theory
Cardinality of Sets:
If we define two sets:
A
=
{
a
}
,
B
=
{
b
}
⇒
∣
A
∣
+
∣
B
∣
=
1
+
1
=
2
A={a},B={b}⇒∣A∣+∣B∣=1+1=2
Binary Addition
Binary Representation:
In binary,
1
1 is represented as
1
2
1
2
:
1
2
+
1
2
=
1
0
2
=
2
10
1
2
+1
2
=10
2
=2
10
Number Theory
Peano Axioms:
Using Peano's axioms, we define
1
1 and
2
2 in terms of natural numbers:
Define
0
0 as the first natural number.
Define
1
1 as the successor of
0
0,
S
(
0
)
S(0).
Define
2
2 as the successor of
1
1,
S
(
1
)
=
S
(
S
(
0
)
)
S(1)=S(S(0)).
Therefore,
1
+
1
=
S
(
0
)
+
S
(
0
)
=
S
(
S
(
0
)
)
=
2
1+1=S(0)+S(0)=S(S(0))=2.
Algebra
Using Variables:
Let
x
=
1
x=1:
x
+
x
=
2
x
setting
x
=
1
⇒
2
x
=
2
x+x=2xsetting x=1⇒2x=2
Geometry
Geometric Representation:
If you represent
1
1 as a unit length (e.g., a line segment), then placing two segments together gives you a segment of length
2
2.
Calculus
Limit Approach:
Using limits, you could express it as:
lim
x
→
1
(
x
+
x
)
=
lim
x
→
1
2
x
=
2
x→1
lim
(x+x)=
x→1
lim
2x=2
Derivative Perspective:
Consider the function
f
(
x
)
=
x
+
x
f(x)=x+x:
The derivative
f
′
(
x
)
=
2
f
′
(x)=2.
Evaluating at
x
=
1
x=1 yields
f
(
1
)
=
2
f(1)=2.
Complex Numbers
Complex Addition:
Treating
1
1 as a complex number:
(
1
+
0
i
)
+
(
1
+
0
i
)
=
2
+
0
i
(1+0i)+(1+0i)=2+0i
Exponential Functions
Exponential Notation:
Expressed in terms of exponentials:
e
ln
(
1
)
+
e
ln
(
1
)
=
e
ln
(
2
)
=
2
e
ln(1)
+e
ln(1)
=e
ln(2)
=2
Logarithmic Approach
Using Logarithms:
If you take
log
(
2
)
log(2) in base 10 or e:
1
0
log
(
2
)
=
2
10
log(2)
=2
Combinatorics
Counting Combinations:
The number of ways to choose 2 items from a pool of 2 items can be computed as:
(
2
2
)
+
(
2
1
)
+
(
2
0
)
=
1
+
2
+
1
=
4
(
2
2
)+(
1
2
)+(
0
2
)=1+2+1=4
ini
But combining just two $1 + 1 = 2$ remains valid.
Conclusion
Regardless of the approach-be it basic addition, number theory, set theory, or calculus-the conclusion remains consistent in standard arithmetic:
1
+
1
=
2
1+1=2
2.)
4-3-1 = 0
And, (4-3-1) / (4-3-1) = 0/0 which is not possible in present mathematical calculation.
If 1+1 =3 then it is implied that 0=2 and this is a contradiction.
There is an other error .
Both squares cannot be cancelled so easilu
What?ba 1+1=2 😤
This is not the only case where such things happen in mathematics. While solving equations (especially in more than 50% problems of trigonometric equations), most of the people break rules in steps involved. For example if one writes cosθ = 1/secθ, he/she must take care that θ should not be odd integral multiple of π/2 (or simply θ is not 90° for beginners).
chi
θ can be 90° because Cos 90°=0, while 1/Sec 90° or 1/infinity is also equal to zero. How?
Apart form what my fellow mathematics professors have pointed out as error, I saw it fitting to add that this guy is grossly wrong by considering that 2=3 and or 4=5 : at this point it's a mathematical contradiction. Two distinct objects say a, b will be equal to three distinct objects say a, b, c .. ie a,b != a, b, c
Huge respect from India
🇮🇳😃
@@lforlucky5544 🥰
ㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤ
😎🤘🇮🇳
In 2+2=5,4th line (4-3-1) can't be cancelled by (4-3-1) because of their value ❤️👍
I think you can its like you divide both side by (4-3-1)
@@rigeln1101 you can't divide by 0. Right?
When you find the root of (4-5) and (6-5) there the result should be (plus ,minus 1) ...That's this equation is wrong...
Flat Earthers: I Have Proof The Earth Is Flat!
Their Proof:
a²=b² then a=b is not always true it may be also a= -b
For ex :- 2²=2² here 2=2 i.e a=b
But 2² =( -2)² here 2≠-2 i.e a≠b here a= -b
If you like my explanation please reply me
Moreover 0 ➗ 0≠1 this wrong concept is used in second Sol.
Thanku
Superb💥🔥
This👍
In the first "proof" , you can cancel both squares , however the process in the bracket must be in the absolution. It said that also mr @Li Chi.
yes if u cancel it, then there is no use with the square which means there is no meaning and that is wrong
Q234567890wertyuipñl.,kmjnhhgbvfcdxszawt6fto6dyuojtxrgujrz5t86,uckt7tl8jtdT7Ojryxyuo.kucguyoñucktguiliyfliytfiylygi.
2:51 people passed 7th or 8th also knows what he has done wrong😀😀
What an awkward method. You cannot cancel the powers.
Yes
you are right
I think you are a genius
когда мы вычисляем корень из х², то х надо писать под модулем |x|.
таким образом 5 строка будет выглядеть как |4 - 5| = |6 - 5| => |-1| = |1| => 1 = 1.
это правило надо помнить, чтобы не возникало таких "странных" уравнений))
In 1st , if you take root on both sides then absolute values come , you cannot directly cut roots . So , this is the mistake . I always like you videos. Thanku for this video .🙏🙏❤️❤️❤️❤️
Yes, you are right
Absolutely correct
sqrt(i^2) = abs(i) = 1
sqrt(i^2) = sqrt(-1) = i
i=1 proved
@@Firefly256 do u even know what u r talking about
@@naveensharma2509 yes
Huge thanks from India🇮🇳
+ × + = + How ? Please solve this question
@@rahulkumar__108this is not a question ,,Its a basic rule which u don't need to byheart
U just need to know this concept
"यदि आप दो समान चिह्न संख्याओं को गुणा करते हैं, तो result हमेशा positive होता है "
So, the only mistake I found in the calculation is that
*Humans love to make things complicated*
*First one: (4-5)^2 is positive and not negative one. When taking square roots, you must take the positive square root.*
*Second one: 4-3-1 is 0 and you can't divide by 0 because then you get that 2+2=5.*
@Mr D. What if you add one to the -1 in the parenthesis on the LHS to cancel it out. But what you so to one side you must do to the other, so you add one to the -1 on the RHS. Then you get 4(4-3)=5(4-3) which equals 4(1)=5(1) which is the same as 4=5.
I'm not saying I'm right, just tell me how I'm wrong.
I’ll prove that it equals 2, let’s say I have 1 sweet in my left hand and one in my right, I put both of the sweets in my left hand (1+1) and now I have two because I can’t just spawn a sweet
yes it’s 2 who believes call of memes you are smart if you are not believing him you dumb
I have a chocolate bar, I cut it in the correct way and I have a chocolate bar and a chocolate piece, now I take another chocolate bar and I have 3 choco pieces. 1 = 2 +1 = 3 = 1+1
@@TheFakePlayerGame u cut it in 3 pieces so it’s 1+1+1=3
2:37 where did the (2.4.5 )and (2.6.5)go
You didn't continue them in this solution
He substituted them using an expansion formula.
Yes but the equation would be (4^2-5^2)^2
@@Unhunted did you mean (4 - 5)^2
No I was over thinking the equation
there is a trick
a rule of (a-b)^2 when b>a like (4-5)^2 and the actual under root is -(4-5)
and because of square/root rule the possible values of eq. can be +ve or -ve
mr. matescium ignore the rule but it is ignorable in variable functions
and if we deeply know the rules and check the equation it is going wrong in 5=>point
hens the equation is unproper( ^_^)
Thankyou sir for helping me. Tomorrow is my board exam and I will use this trick. 😃😃
Understand my sarcasm 😊
😂😂😂😂
Kitne number aaye kaal?😿
💨🤡