1 + 1 = 3 can someone prove this?

Discussion in 'After Hours Lounge (Off Topic)' started by Mark Giles, Jun 17, 2005.

  1. Mark Giles

    Mark Giles Second Unit

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2002
    Messages:
    272
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    There is a way. This is not a riddle. Purely mathematical. Wont give any hints yet, but curious who can prove this first. Good luck!
     
  2. Chris Bardon

    Chris Bardon Cinematographer

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2000
    Messages:
    2,059
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    It works, but only for extremely large values of 1.
     
  3. Rob Gardiner

    Rob Gardiner Cinematographer

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2002
    Messages:
    2,950
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    If I remember correctly, the solution to this puzzle requires dividing by zero, which is a big no-no.
     
  4. ThomasC

    ThomasC Lead Actor

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2001
    Messages:
    6,526
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I saw this on a professor's door. The logic is flawed, though. "Proof" that 1 = 2. Let a = 1 and b = 1.

    a = b

    a^2 = ab

    a^2 - b^2 = ab - b^2

    (a + b)(a - b) = b (a - b)

    a + b = b

    Unfortunately, (a - b) = 0, negating (a + b) and b.
     
  5. Mark Giles

    Mark Giles Second Unit

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2002
    Messages:
    272
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0


    Nope, that's not the answer. sorry [​IMG]
     
  6. Bill Williams

    Bill Williams Screenwriter

    Joined:
    May 28, 2003
    Messages:
    1,699
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Here's one way of looking at it...

    Husband - 1
    Wife - 1
    Husband and wife have baby
    Husband, wife, and baby makes 3!

    It takes two to make three!
     
  7. Mark Giles

    Mark Giles Second Unit

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2002
    Messages:
    272
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Very good ThomasC

    I'll think of something harder next time :b
     
  8. Haggai

    Haggai Producer

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2003
    Messages:
    3,883
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Rob, you remembered right, as ThomasC's post explains in the spoiler.

    Here's a fallacy that illustrates a different concept. Can you spot the error in this "proof" that 1 = 0? The ... in each line here means to repeat the pattern on into infinity.

    1 = 1 + 0 + 0 + 0 + ...
    = 1 + (-1 + 1) + (-1 + 1) + (-1 + 1) + ...
    = (1 - 1) + (1 - 1) + (1 - 1) + ...
    = 0 + 0 + 0 + ...
    = 0
     
  9. Jason Harbaugh

    Jason Harbaugh Cinematographer

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2001
    Messages:
    2,968
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
  10. Danny Tse

    Danny Tse Producer

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2000
    Messages:
    3,185
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I had a math professor who did this on the board one day and it was quite an eye-opener.

    Now that I am a government analyst, I do see this type of "new math" used regularly.
     
  11. RobertR

    RobertR Lead Actor

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 1998
    Messages:
    9,767
    Likes Received:
    197
    Trophy Points:
    9,110
    You left out the first 1 in line 3, Haggai [​IMG]

    Here's the "proof" that girls are evil:

    girls = time * money

    There's an old saying that time is money, so

    girls = money * money

    Another saying is that money is the root of all evil:

    money = sqrt(evil)

    substituting, we get

    girls = sqrt(evil) * sqrt(evil), or

    girls = evil
     
  12. ThomasC

    ThomasC Lead Actor

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2001
    Messages:
    6,526
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Well, I had it handed to me as I mentioned in my first post.
     
  13. ThomasC

    ThomasC Lead Actor

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2001
    Messages:
    6,526
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    And that knowledge is evil as well:

    Knowledge is power
    Power corrupts
    Corruption is evil
    Thus, knowledge is evil
     
  14. andrew markworthy

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 1999
    Messages:
    4,762
    Likes Received:
    12
    Trophy Points:
    0
    One plus another one is either eleven or two - it depends whether you're using arabic or roman numerals. [​IMG]
     
  15. Haggai

    Haggai Producer

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2003
    Messages:
    3,883
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0


    Nope, that wasn't the intention. The formatting here isn't ideal, but look at the difference between lines 2 and 3, the intent there is that I've just re-arranged the parentheses from line 2, all of them being shifted one spot to the left. I'll change it to make the # of 1's match up, now there are 7 of them in both line 2 and in line 3:

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

    Of course, that step between lines 2 and 3 is where the fallacy/error is...any takers?
     
  16. RobertR

    RobertR Lead Actor

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 1998
    Messages:
    9,767
    Likes Received:
    197
    Trophy Points:
    9,110
    But that was what I was getting at. In line 2, it's of the form 1 + n(1-1), where n can be infinite. In line 3, it's just n(1-1), which isn't the same thing.
     
  17. Kenneth

    Kenneth Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 1997
    Messages:
    757
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0

    So where does that put knowledge about girls? [​IMG]

    Cheers,

    Kenneth
     
  18. Holadem

    Holadem Lead Actor

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2000
    Messages:
    8,967
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0

    Yeah well, the question is how a seemingly correct operation using the associative property of addition produced such a result.

    I can only say that the associative property doesn't apply to infinite sums/series?

    --
    H
     
  19. Haggai

    Haggai Producer

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2003
    Messages:
    3,883
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0

    You're getting close...that property does apply to certain kinds of infinite sums, but not to others. Full explanation soon, unless someone tries to kill me first. [​IMG]
     
  20. Haggai

    Haggai Producer

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2003
    Messages:
    3,883
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    OK, I'll go ahead and fill in all the details.

    Using the associative property (i.e., moving parentheses around without changing the value of anything) for infinite sums only works if the series, when written without any parentheses, converges to a finite number (and in a specific way, to boot, convergence alone isn't always enough, but I'll leave that alone for now). For instance, the infinite sum:

    1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + 1/16 + 1/32 + ...

    ...equals 1 when summed to infinity. You can re-arrange the terms any way you like, group them in any way with any pattern of parentheses, and the infinite sum will still converge to the value of 1. But let's see what the infinite sum from my previous posts looks like without any parentheses:

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

    And so forth. Does this infinite sum have a finite value? No, it diverges. Certain sums are obviously divergent because they keep getting bigger in an unstoppable way, i.e. 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + ..., or 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + ..., for instance. The series in question here doesn't do that, as each successive 1 is cancelled out by the next -1, but it diverges because it never approaches one particular value in an inexorable way. If you stop after finitely many steps, you get a sum of either 1 or 0, depending on where you stop.

    So you can't re-arrange any parentheses in this case because the infinite sum does not actually represent a finite value in and of itself.
     

Share This Page