All Now Mysterious...

Wednesday, April 25, 2007

...For Very Large Values of 1

I was introduced to the following 'proof' years ago. It's become a favorite to share with algebra classes.

a = b
a2 = ab
a2 - b2 = ab - b2
(a + b)(a - b) = b (a - b)
(a + b) = b
(b + b) = b
2b = b
2 = 1


While the result is obviously wrong—one is not equal to two, even for very large values of one—the steps seem logical enough. Justifications for each step are as follows:

1. Define a and b to be equal to each other.
2. Multiply both sides by the same thing (a).
3. Subtract the same thing (b2) from both sides.
4. Factor both sides.
5. Eliminate a common factor (a - b) from both sides.
6. Replace a on the left side with b, since they were defined in step 1 to be equal.
7. Express the sum (b + b) as a product (2b).
8. Eliminate a common variable (b) from both sides.

Looks sound enough, except for that one nagging little detail—two is still not equal to one.

A No-prize to the first person who can tell me specifically where and/or how this 'proof' breaks down.

Edit:
Wendy gets the No-prize:

Removing the common factor in step five, (a-b) is removing the zero...

Specifically, it's removing the zero by division. And dividing by zero (like traveling faster than light or electing third-party candidates) is something you just can't do.

8 Comments:

  • Aaaaarrrgggggghhhhhhhhhhhh! My eyes! My eyes! I despised proofs back in high school and managed to avoid giving them a moment of thought . . . until now.

    I'm scarred for life.

    By Blogger dilliwag, At April 25, 2007 10:21 PM  

  • Then I suppose now wouldn't be the best time to say that I derived the quadratic formula on the board for a class yesterday...

    By Blogger Michael, At April 26, 2007 6:24 AM  

  • All right, it's been too long. Clearly the problem lies in the transition between step 4 and step 5. Steps 3 and 4 leave the value of each side to be zero. Removing the common factor in step five, (a-b) is removing the zero...

    And that's all probably relevant to nothing!!

    I don't remember the rules!!

    This is somebody who got well over 700 on the math SAT.

    Okay, so I have a math issue today maybe you can explain. Last night my nephew was working on his math homework, converting fractions to decimals. Old math would dictate a division problem to figure it out. His "new math" suggested the following process:

    To convert 19/20 into decimals, figure out how many times 20 goes into 100.

    5 times.

    Now multiply 5 and 19.

    95.

    The decimal value is therefore .95

    Is there any mathematical basis to that at all? I can't see it. It feels like hocus pocus math.

    And how in the world are those two steps easier than a 19 divided by 20 equation?

    I think new math would let 2=1.

    By Blogger Wendy, At April 26, 2007 8:46 AM  

  • It't in the factoring or the next step, but I can't for the life of me see it.

    "You can't three from two, two is less than three, so you 4 in the tens place, now that's really 4 tens, so you make it three tens, regroup, and you change a 10 to ten ones and you add them to the 2 and get 12 and you take away 3 and that's nine"

    By Blogger Lord Mhoram, At April 27, 2007 10:45 AM  

  • Wendy - Pretty simple.

    If you think of a decimal as being a percange of the whole number One. 1.0 = 100%.
    5/10 is 50%.
    So divide by 20 into 100 finds what percentage of the "100%" that each "1" in the 20 is. And 20 into 100 gives 5 - so each "1" in the 20 is 5% of the decimal total of 100%.
    So you multiply that 5 by 19 for 95. So you have 95% of 100%, or .95.


    It's similar to a math trick I know. 2x5 is ten, so to multiply by 5 divide by 2 and add a decimal.
    ie - 106 times 5.
    Half to 53, add a decimal to 530. 106x5 is 130.

    There are lots of these little relationships that are pretty cool.

    By Blogger Lord Mhoram, At April 27, 2007 10:53 AM  

  • 530.. typo. *sigh*

    My favorite bits of math were proofs. They were logical, and they made sense.

    Trig and I never got along. Calculus and Algebra I had no problems with.

    By Blogger Lord Mhoram, At April 27, 2007 12:57 PM  

  • ::looks at the above banter . . . head explodes::

    By Blogger dilliwag, At April 27, 2007 2:41 PM  

  • Lyrics and Chords for Tom Lehrer's "New Math" (as referenced by Curtis):

    http://www.guntheranderson.com/v/data/newmath.htm

    My favorite bit from the song is "Now actually, that is not the answer that I had in mind because the book that I got this problem out of wants you to do it in base eight. But don't panic. Base eight is just like base ten really--if you're missing two fingers."

    By Blogger Michael, At April 28, 2007 7:28 AM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]



<< Home