how the 0+0 is 2 give explanation
Answers
Answered by
0
Hey there!
Actually, This isn't correct 0 + 0 = 0 , But not 2 , as you have asked I am giving you a proof.
0 - 0 = 0 - 0
0² - 0² = 0*2 - 0*2
( 0 + 0 ) ( 0 - 0 ) = 2 ( 0 - 0 )
( 0 + 0 ) = 2 .
Hope helped!
Actually, This isn't correct 0 + 0 = 0 , But not 2 , as you have asked I am giving you a proof.
0 - 0 = 0 - 0
0² - 0² = 0*2 - 0*2
( 0 + 0 ) ( 0 - 0 ) = 2 ( 0 - 0 )
( 0 + 0 ) = 2 .
Hope helped!
Answered by
1
The answer is given below :
We know that,
0 - 0 = 0 - 0
⇒ 0² - 0² = 0×2 - 0×2
⇒ (0 + 0) (0 - 0) = 2 × (0 - 0),
using the identity a² - b² = (a +b)(a - b)
⇒ 0 + 0 = 2
So, 0 + 0 = 2 [Proved]
THE MISTAKE :
We know that if x be a non-zero real number, then to make a resulting multiplicative identity (1) in purpose, we need to multiply x by its reciprocal.
Let me give an example of how cancellation law works in multiplication.
a = b
Now, to make the RHS = 1, we need to multiply both sides with the reciprocal of b, i.e., 1/b, where b ≠ 0 because if b = 0, (1/0) be undefined.
Thus in the given problem, we cancelled (0 - 0) = 0, by multiplying both sides with the reciprocal of 0, i.e., 0^(-1) = 1/0, which is undefined.
But in these types of proofs, this kind of committed mistake in purpose is ignored.
Thank you for your question.
We know that,
0 - 0 = 0 - 0
⇒ 0² - 0² = 0×2 - 0×2
⇒ (0 + 0) (0 - 0) = 2 × (0 - 0),
using the identity a² - b² = (a +b)(a - b)
⇒ 0 + 0 = 2
So, 0 + 0 = 2 [Proved]
THE MISTAKE :
We know that if x be a non-zero real number, then to make a resulting multiplicative identity (1) in purpose, we need to multiply x by its reciprocal.
Let me give an example of how cancellation law works in multiplication.
a = b
Now, to make the RHS = 1, we need to multiply both sides with the reciprocal of b, i.e., 1/b, where b ≠ 0 because if b = 0, (1/0) be undefined.
Thus in the given problem, we cancelled (0 - 0) = 0, by multiplying both sides with the reciprocal of 0, i.e., 0^(-1) = 1/0, which is undefined.
But in these types of proofs, this kind of committed mistake in purpose is ignored.
Thank you for your question.
Similar questions