Mathmeticians: Do you believe 1 = 0

Ye' old general discussion board. Basically, for everything that isn't covered elsewhere. Come here to shoot the breeze, shoot your mouth off, or whatever suits your fancy.
This forum is not for asking programming related questions.

Moderator: General Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
nigma
DevNet Resident
Posts: 1094
Joined: Sat Jan 25, 2003 1:49 am

Mathmeticians: Do you believe 1 = 0

Post by nigma »

http://www.diabloworld.com/forums/showt ... genumber=2

Check it out, I am not what you might call a math wizard so am hoping some of the math wizards here can share their opinion of that statement.
Last edited by nigma on Sun Mar 21, 2004 1:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
volka
DevNet Evangelist
Posts: 8391
Joined: Tue May 07, 2002 9:48 am
Location: Berlin, ger

Post by volka »

  • 2 = 1:
    undo the substiution Given: b = a (replace any b by a) and you will find that there is a division by 0 - ouch
  • 1=0:
    ::::::split the roots - yes you can do that
    but -a*-a == a*a - ouch
User avatar
nigma
DevNet Resident
Posts: 1094
Joined: Sat Jan 25, 2003 1:49 am

Post by nigma »

Volka: Why would b = a in the first place? I do not mean this sarcastically or in a smart ass way, I am really curious and would like to truely understand this.
Paddy
Forum Contributor
Posts: 244
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2003 8:16 pm
Location: Hobart, Tas, Aussie
Contact:

Post by Paddy »

Nigma: That was a funny question coming from a programmer. No harm intended. b and a are just variables like $temp would be. In this particular case it is essential to declare a to equal b so that the proof works.

I have been trying to get my head around why this works actually. the 2=0 one at least. I think when they say (a-b) and cancels them they are essentially dividing by zero, a-b = 0 if a and b are the same, which is not allowed.

I can't find a hole in the second one. But it has been like 5 years since I have done imaginary numbers.
User avatar
nigma
DevNet Resident
Posts: 1094
Joined: Sat Jan 25, 2003 1:49 am

Post by nigma »

I realize b and a are variables, I do know a a wee bit of algebra ;) I guess I am just a bit confused, and I cannot put my finger on what is confusing me, maybe the whole damned thing !?!
User avatar
nigma
DevNet Resident
Posts: 1094
Joined: Sat Jan 25, 2003 1:49 am

Post by nigma »

I ask these questions, fully willing to expose how much I really know (or for that matter, don't know) in hopes that I might benefit by asking questions.

How can one number be equal to another number without being the same number?

How can 2 be 0? They are different numbers?

If they were the same wouldn't
2 + 2 be the same as 0 + 0? Which would mean 4 = 0?
User avatar
devork
Forum Contributor
Posts: 213
Joined: Fri Aug 08, 2003 6:44 am
Location: p(h) developer's network

Post by devork »

ok let's put it this way :wink:
if
a=b AND b=c
THEN a=c

if
[my hand] touching [table] AND [table] touching [floor]
THEN
[my hand ] is touching [floor]


everything can be expressed in math form [dumps up for Mathematicians]
.....
Stoneguard
Forum Contributor
Posts: 101
Joined: Wed Aug 13, 2003 9:02 pm
Location: USA

Post by Stoneguard »

I believe the fallacy for the first proof lies in the order of substitutions.

I think one of the first rules for solving equations would cause you to reaplace either a with b or b with a BEFORE proceeding on to any other steps in the process, therefore elinimating the misrepresentation of unequal parts.
User avatar
volka
DevNet Evangelist
Posts: 8391
Joined: Tue May 07, 2002 9:48 am
Location: Berlin, ger

Post by volka »

Both 2=1 and 1=0 can be proven.

Given: b = a

ab = a^2 :::::::: multiply both sides by a
ab - b^2 = a^2 - b^2 ::::::::subtract b^2 from both sides
b(a-b) = (a+b) (a-b) ::::::::::factor both sides
b = (a+b) ::::::::::::::cancel common term
b = 2b :::::::::: a = b is given
2 = 1 :::::::::divide by b
ok, now resubstitute b = a
  • aa = a^2 :::::::: multiply both sides by a
  • aa - a^2 = a^2 - a^2 ::::::::subtract b^2 from both sides
  • a(a-a) = (a+a) (a-a) ::::::::::factor both sides
  • a = (a+a) ::::::::::::::cancel common term, i.e. dividing both sides by (a-a)=0
  • ouch
sqrrt(1/-1) = sqrrt(-1/1) :::::::square root both sides
sqrrt(1)/sqrrt(-1) = sqrrt(-1)/sqrrt(1) ::::::split the roots - yes you can do that
Both lines are supposed to cause each other (if line 1 is true then line 2 is true as well and the other way around)
But if you take the square root you have to test both possibilities +sqrt(term) and -sqrt(term)
sqrt(1) is either +1 or -1, (-1*-1)=1 as well. This test has been forgotten because it spoils the proof ;)
User avatar
nigma
DevNet Resident
Posts: 1094
Joined: Sat Jan 25, 2003 1:49 am

Post by nigma »

Thanks for "enlightening" me ;) Apreciate the timely and easily understandable explanation!
User avatar
volka
DevNet Evangelist
Posts: 8391
Joined: Tue May 07, 2002 9:48 am
Location: Berlin, ger

Post by volka »

everything can be expressed in math form [dumps up for Mathematicians]
The more cheese the more holes. The more holes the less cheese. Ergo: The more cheese the less cheese
hope the translation is somewhat understandable...
User avatar
devork
Forum Contributor
Posts: 213
Joined: Fri Aug 08, 2003 6:44 am
Location: p(h) developer's network

Post by devork »

:wink: yep it was ...
Post Reply