The beginning equation 1+1=1+1 Now equating RHS (right hand side of equation) 1+1 is the RHS =1+sqrt(1) =1+sqrt[(-1)(-1)]. I hope u kno BODMAS =1+sqrt(-1) * sqrt(-1) =1+ a * a remember my assumption =1+ (-1) =1-1 = 0 Remember I was only equation the RHS ??? Well now I am going to re-insert the now equated RHS into the original formula 1+1= RHS 1+1= 0.
F.A.QuestioN
Q- there is no such thing as sqrt(-1) A- yes that is true but it is also true that when u multipy the sqrt of a number with itself you get the number of who's sqrt was taken [ Sqrt(2) * sqrt(2) = 2 ] that rule is applied here...
You are forgetting or perhaps don't know, that atleast x or y has to be a positive value not equal to 1 in order to be a valid translation
There are many mathematical fallacies, most of them intentionally breaking the rules of arithmetic and disguising it in some form in order to seemingly logically prove absurd equations.
Two other methods include:
-Using the rule a^b=a^c to conclude that if 1^1=1^0, 1=0. The rule also states that a must be a positive value that is not equal to 1
-Disguising division by zero which is undefined and is therefore an invalid argument. a=1 and b=1 a=b a^2=ab a^2-b^2=ab-b^2 (a-b)(a+b)=b(a-b) a+b=b 1+1=1 The problem is, a-b=0, so you cannot divide by (a-b)
There are many, more complicated methods of 'roving' absurd equations, all of them break atleast 1 rule.
Remember that, although maths is created by humans to measure, calculate and make sense of things, maths has a very strict set of rules that must be used by all mathematicians in order for it to function. The argument that maths is made up and can therefore yield any results you want is invalid.
If you make your own rules, its not maths, its YOUR maths. MY maths dictates that squaring a number reduces it by 25809348098039485 and then powers it by pi, good for me!
