Cyprus-Forum.com

Theorem: 3=4
Proof:

Suppose:
a + b = c

This can also be written as:
4a - 3a + 4b - 3b = 4c - 3c

After reorganizing:
4a + 4b - 4c = 3a + 3b - 3c

Take the constants out of the brackets:
4 * (a+b-c) = 3 * (a+b-c)

Remove the same term left and right:
4 = 3

Much easier

3 x 0 = 0
4 x 0 = 0

3 x 0 = 4 x 0

Divide each side by 0

3 = 4

devil, you cannot divide zero with zero. Or you cannot even divide any numbers with zero just fyi.

garbitsch wrote:devil, you cannot divide zero with zero. Or you cannot even divide any numbers with zero just fyi.

DUH !!!! I wonder why no one ever told me that before, when I was doing degree maths????

Now you've learnt it

reminds me of the Salary Theorem (the less you know, the more you make).
Proof:

Postulate 1: Knowledge is Power.
Postulate 2: Time is Money.
As every engineer knows: Power = Work / Time
And since Knowledge = Power and Time = Money
It is therefore true that Knowledge = Work / Money .
Solving for Money, we get:
Money = Work / Knowledge
Thus, as Knowledge approaches zero, Money approaches infinity, regardless of the amount of Work done.

devil, you cannot divide zero with zero. Or you cannot even divide any numbers with zero just fyi.

Isn't that what Sotos did by dividing by (a+b-c), also zero,
or am I missing something?

for that matter its not just 3=4, any two consequtive natural numbers can be "proved" to be equal

but.... to the finer eye

4 * (a+b-c) = 3 * (a+b-c)

is where the flaw is......

a+b=c
so a+b-c=0

so effectively it becomes

4*0=3*0

since in the original post the expression is being divided by (a+b-c) which is actually 0 the division will fail, 0 divided by zero is undefined.

so all that we can prove is 0=0 which is true for all numbers.

Which is why my version, which Garbitsch tried to trash, is much easier: it is exactly the same.