...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.
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 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 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 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 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 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 Lord Mhoram, At April 27, 2007 12:57 PM
::looks at the above banter . . . head explodes::
By 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 Michael, At April 28, 2007 7:28 AM
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home