26 Mar 07
the above solution is on my line but with a flaw that stands close to Kmaran's comment. It is in substituting a=b not for performing equal operation. We can not just replace 2=3 than it would have nothing to prove at all our puzzle; 1=2 from 1=1. But we can say performa mathematical equal operation like adding up a certain value to both of the sides. Now, thanks again for your response but may place another request? You have started with algebric notation that also stands equal though but with the basic flaw of all in this particular case, that you haven't started from 1=1. again thank you for your participation.
• United States
21 Feb 07
when you are multiplying by 1 on both sides then why you are using 2 on right hand side and 1 on left hand side.so it is not following the commutative law.if there is statement that 0 equals to any number mulitplied by 0 then it may be correct.
21 Apr 07
In the last step, you are dividing both sides by 0, which is not a real mathematical operation since the result is an INDETERMINATION or a mathematical incongrence (what will you give each when you share something between zero persons?).