Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 9

Here we will show, that 2 is equal to 3, since this equation is not

only essential to fundamental physics, but also to fundamental

We will start with to simple equations:
Now, by inserting (2) into (1), we get:
After multiplication, eq. (3) yields:
Now let us clarify the structure of eq. (4) by shifting all terms
including the number 3 on the left side, and all terms including
the number 2 on the right side:
3 a - 3 b - 3c = 2 a - 2 b - 2 c

Eq. (5) may be written even more clearly by the use of brackets:
Now it is very easy to see, that indeed

We know that,
-6 = -6
i.e., 4 - 10 = 9 - 15
i.e., 4 - 10 + (25/4) = 9 - 15 + (25/4)
i.e., 2^2 - 2*2*(5/2) + (5/2)^2 = 3^2 - 2*3*(5/2) + (5/2)^2
i.e., (2 - 5/2)^2 = (3 - 5/2)^2
i.e., 2 - 5/2 = 3 - 5/2
i.e., 2 = 3
1st: multiply both side by 4
2*4 = 3*4
8 = 12
2nd: subtract both side by 10
8-10 = 12-10
-2 = 2

3rd: square both side

(-2)^2 = (2)^2
therefore, 2 is equals to 3.....

Mathematical fallacy
In mathematics, certain kinds of mistaken proof are often exhibited, and sometimes
collected, as illustrations of a concept of mathematical fallacy. There is a
distinction between a simple mistake and a mathematical fallacy in a proof: a
mistake in a proof leads to an invalid proof just in the same way, but in the bestknown examples of mathematical fallacies, there is some concealment in the
presentation of the proof. For example, the reason validity fails may be a division
by zero that is hidden by algebraic notation. There is a striking quality of the
mathematical fallacy: as typically presented, it leads not only to an absurd result,
but does so in a crafty or clever way.[1] Therefore these fallacies, for pedagogic
reasons, usually take the form of spurious proofs of obvious contradictions.
Although the proofs are flawed, the errors, usually by design, are comparatively
subtle, or designed to show that certain steps are conditional, and should not be
applied in the cases that are the exceptions to the rules.
The traditional way of presenting a mathematical fallacy is to give an invalid step
of deduction mixed in with valid steps, so that the meaning of fallacy is here
slightly different from the logical fallacy. The latter applies normally to a form of
argument that is not a genuine rule of logic, where the problematic mathematical
step is typically a correct rule applied with a tacit wrong assumption. Beyond
pedagogy, the resolution of a fallacy can lead to deeper insights into a subject (such
as the introduction of Pasch's axiom of Euclidean geometry[2] and the five color
theorem of graph theory). Pseudaria, an ancient lost book of false proofs, is
attributed to Euclid.[3]
Mathematical fallacies exist in many branches of mathematics. In elementary
algebra, typical examples may involve a step where division by zero is performed,
where a root is incorrectly extracted or, more generally, where different values of
a multiple valued function are equated. Well-known fallacies also exist in
elementary Euclidean geometry and calculus.


Examples exist of mathematically correct results derived by incorrect lines of

however true the
mathematically invalid and is commonly known as a howler. Consider for instance
the calculation:

Although the conclusion

is correct, there is a fallacious, invalid
cancellation in the middle step. Bogus proofs, calculations, or derivations
constructed to produce a correct result in spite of incorrect logic or operations
were termed howlers by Maxwell. Outside the field of mathematics the term
"howler" has various meanings, generally less specific.

Division by zero

The division-by-zero fallacy has many variants.

All numbers equal all other numbers
The following example uses division by zero to "prove" that 2 = 1, but can be
modified to prove that any number equals any other number.
1. Let a and b be equal non-zero quantities
2. Multiply by a
3. Subtract
4. Factor both sides
5. Divide out
6. Observing that

7. Combine like terms on the left

8. Divide by the non-zero b
The fallacy is in line 5: the progression from line 4 to line 5 involves division
by a b, which is zero since a equals b. Since division by zero is undefined, the
argument is invalid.
Multivalued functions

Many functions do not have a unique inverse. For instance squaring a number
gives a unique value, but there are two possible square roots of a positive number.
The square root is multivalued. One value can be chosen by convention as
the principal value, in the case of the square root the non-negative value is the
principal value, but there is no guarantee that the square root function given by this
principal value of the square of a number will be equal to the original number, e.g.
the square root of the square of 2 is 2.

Calculus as the mathematical study of infinitesimal change and limits can lead to
mathematical fallacies if the properties of integrals and differentials are ignored.
For instance, a naive use of integration by parts can be used to give a false proof
that 0 = 1. Letting


, we may write:

after which the antiderivatives may be cancelled yielding 0 = 1. The

problem is that antiderivatives are only defined up to a constant and shifting
them by 1 or indeed any number is allowed. The error really comes to light
when we introduce arbitrary integration limits a and b.

Since the difference between two values of a constant function vanishes, the same
definite integral appears on both sides of the equation.
Power and root

Fallacies involving disregarding the rules of elementary arithmetic through an

incorrect manipulation of the radical. For complex numbers the failure of power
and logarithm identities has led to many fallacies.
Positive and negative roots
Invalid proofs utilizing powers and roots are often of the following kind:

The fallacy is that the rule

is generally valid only if
both x and y are positive (when dealing with real numbers), which is not the case
Although the fallacy is easily detected here, sometimes it is concealed more
effectively in notation. For instance, consider the equation

which holds as a consequence of the Pythagorean theorem. Then, by taking a

square root,

so that

But evaluating this when x = implies


which is incorrect.
The error in each of these examples fundamentally lies in the fact that any equation
of the form

has two solutions, provided a 0,

and it is essential to check which of these solutions is relevant to the problem at

hand. In the above fallacy, the square root that allowed the second equation to be
deduced from the first is valid only when cos x is positive. In particular, when x is
set to , the second equation is rendered invalid.
Complex exponents
When a number is raised to a complex power, the result is not uniquely defined
(see Failure of power and logarithm identities). If this property is not recognized,
then errors such as the following can result:

The error here is that the rule of multiplying exponents as when going to the third
line does not apply unmodified with complex exponents, even if when putting both
sides to the power i only the principal value is chosen. When treated as multivalued
functions, both sides produce the same set of values, being {e2n | n }.

Many mathematical fallacies in geometry arise from using in an additive equality

involving oriented quantities (such adding vectors along a given line or adding

oriented angles in the plane) a valid identity, but which fixes only the absolute
value of (one of) these quantities. This quantity is then incorporated into the
equation with the wrong orientation, so as to produce an absurd conclusion. This
wrong orientation is usually suggested implicitly by supplying an imprecise
diagram of the situation, where relative positions of points or lines are chosen in a
way that is actually impossible under the hypotheses of the argument, but nonobviously so. Such a fallacy is easy to expose by drawing a precise picture of the
situation, in which some relative positions will be different form those in the
provided diagram. In order to avoid such fallacies, a correct geometric argument
using addition or subtraction of distances or angles should always prove that
quantities are being incorporated with their correct orientation.
Fallacy of the isosceles triangle
The fallacy of the isosceles triangle, from (Maxwell 1959, Chapter II, 1),
purports to show that every triangle is isosceles, meaning that two sides of the
triangle are congruent. This fallacy has been attributed to Lewis Carroll.
Given a triangle ABC, prove that AB = AC:
1. Draw a line bisecting A
2. Draw the perpendicular bisector of segment BC, which bisects BC at a point
3. Let these two lines meet at a point O.
4. Draw line OR perpendicular to AB, line OQ perpendicular to AC
5. Draw lines OB and OC
7. By RHS,[12] ROB QOC
8. Thus, AR = AQ, RB = QC, and AB = AR + RB = AQ + QC = AC
As a corollary, one can show that all triangles are equilateral, by showing that AB
= BC and AC = BC in the same way.

The error in the proof is the assumption in the diagram that the point O is inside the
triangle. In fact, O always lies at the circumcircle of the ABC (except for
isosceles and equilateral triangles where AO and OD coincides . Furthermore, it
can be shown that, if AB is longer than AC, then R will lie within AB, while Q will
lie outside of AC (and vice versa). (Any diagram drawn with sufficiently accurate
instruments will verify the above two facts.) Because of this, AB is still AR + RB,
but AC is actually AQ QC; and thus the lengths are not necessarily the same.