Warning: Illegal string offset 'html' in /home/hsn/public_html/forum/cache/skin_cache/cacheid_1/skin_topic.php on line 909

1 = 2 Proved - HSN forum

1 = 2 Proved

54 replies to this topic

#1Mr H

Site Swot

• Members
• 156 posts
• Location:Soonagonner Retirement Home
• Gender:Male

Posted 25 April 2006 - 07:34 AM

H tends 2 infinity

---------------------------------
Never argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level then beat you with experience.

#2bred

Brendan

• Moderators
• 4,215 posts
• Location:Edinburgh
• Interests:I have just graduated with a 2:1 in Geography [MA (Hons)] from The University of Edinburgh. I like sports: swimming, cycling, snowboarding, running, football, mountain biking and also travelling and photography.
• Gender:Male

Posted 25 April 2006 - 09:57 AM

Edit: scrapping what I previously posted, for now at least.

Edited by bred, 25 April 2006 - 05:42 PM.

Please vote for me! (Brendan Howard, 5th from bottom, only 1 vote required): http://answers.polld...m/poll/2330393/

#3The Wedge Effect

HSN Legend

• Members
• 2,477 posts
• Location:Paisley
• Gender:Male

Posted 25 April 2006 - 09:57 AM

There was a proof that someone showed me a few months ago, where you could prove that any integers, n, eg. 2, 3, 5, 10, 100......=1, if I can find it, I'll put it up here.

Edit: In reply to Bred, no they're not.

#4dfx

Fully Fledged Genius

• Members
• 1,955 posts
• Gender:Male

Posted 25 April 2006 - 12:34 PM

You suddenly introduced '1' in the third line down on the right hand side. If you introduce it on the left hand side also, then the equality holds true.

Showing Improvement

• Members
• 29 posts
• Gender:Male

Posted 25 April 2006 - 01:16 PM

The logic is wrong.
You are differentiating different equations.
X*X = X whereas X+X = 2X
The first is a parabola and the second a straight line.

#6dfx

Fully Fledged Genius

• Members
• 1,955 posts
• Gender:Male

Posted 25 April 2006 - 02:36 PM

QUOTE(duncad @ Apr 25 2006, 02:16 PM)

The logic is wrong.
You are differentiating different equations.
X*X = X whereas X+X = 2X
The first is a parabola and the second a straight line.

Yes but ultimately it sums up to the same thing, 4^2 = 16 and 4+4+4+4 = 16.

However, yeah they are totally different functions. You would have to use fourier analysis to build two functions from the same building blocks - sine and cosine. Ok maybe I'm over complicating things.

#7broughy

Fully Fledged Genius

• Members
• 1,280 posts
• Location:Giffnock (Glasgow-ish)
• Gender:Female

Posted 25 April 2006 - 02:37 PM

i've seen a proof like that before, one of my maths lecturers showed us it. can't remember why he said it worked though!
when i'm dancin' with you,
tomorrow doesn't matter,
turn that music up,
till the windows start to shatter,
cos you're the only one who can get me on my feet,
& i can't even dance

No Tomorrow - Orson

#8Dave

Ruler (but not owner) of hsn

• Moderators
• 4,252 posts
• Location:kilmarnock(ok kilmaurs)
• Interests:programming, exercising, brass band, using this board
• Gender:Male

Posted 25 April 2006 - 04:26 PM

i dont know if everyone is understanding what was said

we say x2 = x lots of x

now if we differentiate the entire equation basically its 2x on the left hand side
and on the right hand side every x is 1 aka x lots of 1 which is x

so 2x=x

divide by x
2=1

it "works" because every line makes sense and is mathmatically accurate apart from 2x = x and 2=1 obviously

If i am not here i am somewhere else

#9George

Child Prodigy

• 720 posts
• Location:West Lothian
• Gender:Male

Posted 25 April 2006 - 04:35 PM

QUOTE(Dave @ Apr 25 2006, 05:26 PM)

it "works" because every line makes sense and is mathmatically accurate apart from 2x = x and 2=1 obviously

That's not true - every line appears to make sense! If they were all "mathematically accurate", then by implication 2=1 is mathematically accurate

I've been puzzling over this for a while now - I can think of two ways of stating what is wrong with the "proof", but I'm not completely sure yet. It's actually quite subtle, if I'm thinking on the right lines

Top of the Class

• Members
• 390 posts
• Location:Cambridge
• Interests:Muzak.
• Gender:Male

Posted 25 April 2006 - 05:11 PM

I'm going for the second line is incorrect, because:

HMFC - Founded 1874, beefing the Cabbage since 1875

#11Mr H

Site Swot

• Members
• 156 posts
• Location:Soonagonner Retirement Home
• Gender:Male

Posted 25 April 2006 - 07:26 PM

H tends 2 infinity

---------------------------------
Never argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level then beat you with experience.

#12Steve

Top of the Class

• 435 posts
• Location:Edinburgh
• Gender:Male

Posted 25 April 2006 - 08:26 PM

QUOTE(dfx @ Apr 25 2006, 03:36 PM)

However, yeah they are totally different functions. You would have to use fourier analysis to build two functions from the same building blocks - sine and cosine. Ok maybe I'm over complicating things.

I guess you've learned about Fourier series recently . Yes, you are over-complicating things!

HSN contribute: Help the site grow!

Looking for a Maths tutor in West Lothian? Just PM me!

Top of the Class

• Members
• 390 posts
• Location:Cambridge
• Interests:Muzak.
• Gender:Male

Posted 25 April 2006 - 08:29 PM

QUOTE(Mr H @ Apr 25 2006, 08:26 PM)

Does that mean I'm right or wrong?
HMFC - Founded 1874, beefing the Cabbage since 1875

#14George

Child Prodigy

• 720 posts
• Location:West Lothian
• Gender:Male

Posted 25 April 2006 - 08:39 PM

QUOTE(ad absurdum @ Apr 25 2006, 06:11 PM)

I'm going for the second line is incorrect, because:

I agree with that; the second line is not an equality.

Now, here are the two thoughts I had:
1. The first line is meaningless, because x is not necessarily an integer. (e.g. how can you do + + ... + "pi times"?)

I'm not really convinced by that though

2. The "x lots of x" cannot be differentiated termwise, since the number of terms is variable (i.e. there are x terms).

I think that's the best explanation.

#15TempName123

Fully Fledged Genius

• Members
• 1,155 posts
• Gender:Male
• Location:...a womb
• Interests:mm.... to lazy to say

(and the womb bit works in the forums where it says "from" but not here duh just makes me sound.. well... weird!)
• Gender:Male

Posted 25 April 2006 - 08:45 PM

its in the maths textbook. the sign changes when u divide though.

Party pooper

#16Steve

Top of the Class

• 435 posts
• Location:Edinburgh
• Gender:Male

Posted 25 April 2006 - 08:48 PM

QUOTE(PK Barackis @ Apr 25 2006, 09:45 PM)

its in the maths textbook. the sign changes when u divide though.

Sorry, but I don't agree (or see where that would happen)!
HSN contribute: Help the site grow!

Looking for a Maths tutor in West Lothian? Just PM me!

#17Mr H

Site Swot

• Members
• 156 posts
• Location:Soonagonner Retirement Home
• Gender:Male

Posted 25 April 2006 - 10:01 PM

QUOTE(ad absurdum @ Apr 25 2006, 09:29 PM)

QUOTE(Mr H @ Apr 25 2006, 08:26 PM)

Does that mean I'm right or wrong?

Just that I am enjoying the debate but keeping quiet for now!!

H tends 2 infinity

---------------------------------
Never argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level then beat you with experience.

Showing Improvement

• Members
• 29 posts
• Gender:Male

Posted 26 April 2006 - 06:36 AM

As I said previously, the logic is flawed.

At X=2
X = X + X = 2X (but it also = X - 2X +3X -X-6!)
Similarly, at X=3, X = X + X + X = 3X

Differentiating will give the rate of change (gradient) for each function at a discrete point only.
So, setting d/dx(X ) = d/dx(2X) implies that the gradient of X = the gradient of 2X.

So, 2X = 2 implies that the gradients of both functions = 2 at X = 1.

Similarly, when X = 3, X = 3X and the gradients are equal when 2 X = 3,
ie, gradients = 3 at X = 3/2.

#19Steve

Top of the Class

• 435 posts
• Location:Edinburgh
• Gender:Male

Posted 26 April 2006 - 08:32 AM

QUOTE(Steve @ Apr 25 2006, 09:26 PM)

QUOTE(duncad @ Apr 26 2006, 07:36 AM)

As I said previously, the logic is flawed.

At X=2
X = X + X = 2X (but it also = X - 2X +3X -X-6!)
Similarly, at X=3, X = X + X + X = 3X

Yes, but if x = 2, then and if x = 3, then .

I don't think this is where the problem is. does equal , as my working showed. I think the problem is in the "x times" when you differentiate since this is not taken care of.

If you assume that x takes only positive integer values and differentiate the whole RHS, i.e. taking care of the "x times", then you do not get a contradiction, so this must be where the error is ...
HSN contribute: Help the site grow!

Looking for a Maths tutor in West Lothian? Just PM me!

Showing Improvement

• Members
• 29 posts
• Gender:Male

Posted 26 April 2006 - 12:27 PM

No, the problem lies in the fact that people are thinking of X and 2X as being two different ways of writing the same function.
They are two different functions which just happen to give the same result at one particular value.
Try thinking of Higher maths questions where a circle and a straight line meet at a tangent; two very different functions but they share one set of values.
Come to think of it, does that mean that a circle is really a straight line?

1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users