1=2

[mollykins]

Because the proof is flawed, why do people still bother with it? if you do it with numbers, it doesn't work but if you do it with letters then it kind of does, until you realise that you are dividing by 0.

[Prudie]

Oh lawks! Because it's proving that the proof is flawed, that's the whole point.

[mollykins]

That girl thats predicted straight a's spotted that oen stage involves dividing by a-b and if a=b then you are diving by 0 which is just wrong.

[Prudie]

Exactly so it's showing the original theory was wrong. The saying 'works in theory but not in practice' is actually nonsense because if it doesn't work in practice then the theory was wrong - as in your case because you can't divide by zero.

[mollykins]

because if you followed it and did it with numbers, you'd get 0=0 wouldn't you?

[Hymie]

For the benefit of those who haven’t seen this ‘proof’ before:-

a = b [multiply by a]

a^2 = ab [subtract b^2]

a^2-b^2 = ab-b^2 [factorise]

(a+b)(a-b) = b(a-b) [divide by (a-b)]

a+b = b

I recall that my maths teacher could not find the flaw in the above equations.
But then it was a secondary modern comprehensive school – the main purpose of which was to provide adult employment for those who would otherwise be unemployable.

[mollykins]

but like i said, in the last step you divide by a-b which, if a =b, you are dividing by zero is wrong but with letters, works.

[factor-fiction]

I think hymie knows that mollykins.