Chief Delphi

Chief Delphi (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/index.php)
-   Math and Science (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=70)
-   -   0=-1 (Calculus Puzzle) (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?t=104907)

Peck 21-03-2012 22:34

Re: 0=-1 (Calculus Puzzle)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Ether (Post 1147616)
fas est dividere cuius rei demonstrationem mirabilem sane detexi. Hanc marginis exiguitas non caperet

ingles por favor sinor

PAR_WIG1350 21-03-2012 23:09

Re: 0=-1 (Calculus Puzzle)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Peck (Post 1147620)
ingles por favor sinor

1) *Inglés or favor señor.

2) according to google translate: It is a wonderful demonstration of what share of corruption. Shortness of this margin does not take

but that seems like it was lost a bit in the translation:p

It is actually taken from Fermat who wrote about a theorem (a^x + b^x = c^x has no integral solution set a,b,c for any integer value for x greater than 2) in the margins of a book in 1637. It is actually the description of the proof for this theorem which he came up with and it translates more accurately to
Quote:

I have discovered a truly marvelous proof of this, which this margin is too narrow to contain.
unfortunately his proof seems to have disappeared off the face of the earth, assuming he even wrote it down.
Over the years people proved that it held true for specific exponents. It wasn't until 1995 that it all came together in an extremely complex proof that was probably not what Fermat had in mind, but a general proof of the theorem non the less.

EricH 21-03-2012 23:30

Re: 0=-1 (Calculus Puzzle)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by PAR_WIG1350 (Post 1147642)
1) *Inglés or favor señor.

2) according to google translate: It is a wonderful demonstration of what share of corruption. Shortness of this margin does not take

but that seems like it was lost a bit in the translation:p

Sounds like the classic "I have discovered a truly marvelous proof of this, which this margin is too narrow to contain" from Fermat. Which, on investigating the Wikipedia entry on Fermat's last theorem, is exactly what it is.

Well played, Ether.

Ether 21-03-2012 23:33

Re: 0=-1 (Calculus Puzzle)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by EricH (Post 1147654)
Well played, Ether.

Thank you :)



Peck 22-03-2012 07:11

Re: 0=-1 (Calculus Puzzle)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by PAR_WIG1350 (Post 1147642)
1) *Inglés or favor señor.

my computer is annoying whenever i try to insert alt symbols. also, i was using spanish, not latin and por was correct.

RoboDesigners 23-03-2012 16:57

Re: 0=-1 (Calculus Puzzle)
 
Quote:

Has this turned into a thread of trying to find a math trick that Ether doesn't know how to work it? If so, i want a chance to disprove it before he dose .
I have an article here one of my math professors gave me that has a dozen "proofs" that 1=2. (She gave me this after I showed her my "proof," which happened to be in the article... I guess I didn't come up with it first...)

One that's not so hard to disprove is as follows:

0 = (1 - 1) + (1 - 1) + (1 - 1)...

Rearrange parenthesis:
0 = 1 + (-1 + 1) + (-1 + 1) + (-1 + 1)...
0 = 1 + 0 + 0 + 0....
0 = 1

(Ether's going to get this oh-so-fast...)

//Andrew

Dusk Star 23-03-2012 17:19

Re: 0=-1 (Calculus Puzzle)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by RoboDesigners (Post 1148225)
I have an article here one of my math professors gave me that has a dozen "proofs" that 1=2. (She gave me this after I showed her my "proof," which happened to be in the article... I guess I didn't come up with it first...)

One that's not so hard to disprove is as follows:

0 = (1 - 1) + (1 - 1) + (1 - 1)...

Rearrange parenthesis:
0 = 1 + (-1 + 1) + (-1 + 1) + (-1 + 1)...
0 = 1 + 0 + 0 + 0....
0 = 1

(Ether's going to get this oh-so-fast...)

//Andrew

Not if the other Andrew gets there first!

after you rearrange parenthesis, you should have the one at the end that was freed up, therefore
0 = 1 + (-1 + 1) + (-1 + 1) + (-1 + 1)... ...-1
0 = 1 + 0 + 0 + 0... ...-1
0 = 0

Nate Laverdure 23-03-2012 17:52

Re: 0=-1 (Calculus Puzzle)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Dusk Star (Post 1148234)
after you rearrange parenthesis, you should have the one at the end that was freed up...

But can't the one at the end just be moved into the next (1 - 1) term? :)

Ether 23-03-2012 18:49

Re: 0=-1 (Calculus Puzzle)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by RoboDesigners (Post 1148225)

0 = (1 - 1) + (1 - 1) + (1 - 1)...

Rearrange parenthesis:
0 = 1 + (-1 + 1) + (-1 + 1) + (-1 + 1)...
0 = 1 + 0 + 0 + 0....
0 = 1

(Ether's going to get this oh-so-fast...)

Sorry, I was offline all day.

The problem with the above "proof" is that the associative law of arithmetic is not universally valid for infinite sums. So you aren't allowed to re-arrange (or remove) the parentheses.



Ether 23-03-2012 18:51

Re: 0=-1 (Calculus Puzzle)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Dusk Star (Post 1148234)
Not if the other Andrew gets there first!

after you rearrange parenthesis, you should have the one at the end that was freed up,

There is no 1 "at the end". It's an infinite sum.



Dusk Star 24-03-2012 14:30

Re: 0=-1 (Calculus Puzzle)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Ether (Post 1148258)
There is no 1 "at the end". It's an infinite sum.



Ah, ok. Not entirely how I was trying to communicate it, but I guess being an infinite sum invalidates that anyways.

RoboDesigners 24-03-2012 15:20

Re: 0=-1 (Calculus Puzzle)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Ether (Post 1148257)
The problem with the above "proof" is that the associative law of arithmetic is not universally valid for infinite sums. So you aren't allowed to re-arrange (or remove) the parentheses.

Hmmm... that's different than what I was going to say... (the article I have doesn't list the answers...)

I thought that because the series doesn't converge, it doesn't equal zero to begin with. :confused:

//Andrew

Ether 24-03-2012 15:47

Re: 0=-1 (Calculus Puzzle)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by RoboDesigners (Post 1148476)
I thought that because the series doesn't converge, it doesn't equal zero to begin with. :confused:

The original infinite sum you wrote:

(1 - 1) + (1 - 1) + (1 - 1)...

... does converge. It converges because of the parentheses. The term that is being repeatedly added is (1-1). It is equal to zero.

If you remove all the parentheses, so that you have

1 - 1 + 1 - 1 + 1 - 1 ...

then you are alternately adding plus or minus 1, so the sum never converges: it oscillates between 1 and 0.

The error was re-arranging the parentheses. The associative law does not always hold for an infinite sum: You cannot re-arrange the parentheses in an infinite sum unless certain criteria are satisfied.



PAR_WIG1350 24-03-2012 20:45

Re: 0=-1 (Calculus Puzzle)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Peck (Post 1147741)
my computer is annoying whenever i try to insert alt symbols. also, i was using spanish, not latin and por was correct.

The lack of a "p" was a typo, also, I don't like using alt to insert symbols either, but if you use google translate to enter the text the symbol keys (;',./[]\=-) are used to input special letters like vowels with accents

Also, nobody has attempted to figure out this one yet

Quote:

Originally Posted by PAR_WIG1350 (Post 1147590)
167 = -53

No illegal operations were performed, slightly non-standard


Taylor 26-03-2012 10:51

Re: 0=-1 (Calculus Puzzle)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by RoboDesigners (Post 1148225)
I have an article here one of my math professors gave me that has a dozen "proofs" that 1=2. ...

Would you be willing to share this article?

-----

Back in college years, my two buddies and I decided to go to Las Vegas for spring break. We piled into my Chevy Cavalier station wagon (jealous?) and headed West.
About 4am, we got to the point where we were all falling asleep, none of us were able to drive, and the car was too small to comfortably fit three guys. We found a small motel in Kansas, paid $30 for a room ($10 each), and retired for the night.
The clerk was filling out his books when he realized the motel had a policy of $25 per night after 1am. He took five $1 bills and headed to our room. Along the way, he realized we were not going to be able to split five bucks equally among the three of us. He shoved two of the singles in his pocket, gave us each a dollar, and that was that.
Here's the issue:
We were initially charged ten dollars a piece - total of $30.
After the clerk realized his error, the room charge was $25. We paid $9 apiece ($10 - the $1 that was returned) for a total of $27; he put two dollars in his pocket for a total of $29.

29 = 30 ?


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:53.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © Chief Delphi