Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

2 fallacies

  1. Jun 11, 2005 #1
    everybody seems to know at least one of the "proofs" that 1=2 or 1=-1, etc but i had never seen this one before. check it out:
    everybody knows that
    [tex]log(1+x) = x-\frac{x^2}{2} + \frac{x^3}{3} - ...[/tex]

    plug in x=1 & the series converges & we get

    log2 = 1 - 1/2 + 1/3 - 1/4 + 1/5 - 1/6 + 1/7 - ...
    2log2 = 2 - 1 + 2/3 - 1/2 + 2/5 - 1/3 + 2/7 - ...

    take the terms together which have a common denominator (ie simplify) & we get

    2log2 = 1 + 1/3 - 1/2 + 1/5 + 1/7 - 1/4 + 1/9 - ... = 1 - 1/2 + 1/3 -1/4 + ... = log2

    hence 1 = 2
    QED



    here's a similar one
    log2 = 1 - 1/2 + 1/3 - 1/4 + 1/5 - ...
    = (1 + 1/3 + 1/5 + 1/7 + ...) - (1/2 + 1/4 + 1/6 + 1/8 + ...)
    = {(1 + 1/3 + 1/5 + ...) + (1/2 + 1/4 + 1/6 + ...)} - 2(1/2 + 1/4 + 1/6 + ...)
    = (1 + 1/2 + 1/3 + ...) - (1 + 1/2 + 1/3 + ...)
    = 0

    i guess the problem must have something to do with the 'simplification' & doing something to an infinite sum. off the top of my head those are my guesses
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Jun 11, 2005 #2

    shmoe

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    In the first one, you are rearranging the terms, does that make you at all queasy?

    In the second one, you're splitting the limit into the sum of two limits from the first line to the second, when is this allowed?
     
  4. Jun 12, 2005 #3

    dextercioby

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    At the end you're subtracting [itex] \infty -\infty [/itex].

    Daniel.
     
  5. Jun 12, 2005 #4

    Zurtex

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

  6. Jun 12, 2005 #5

    saltydog

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    How you arrange the terms of an alternating series matters. In fact, you can re-arrange them to make the series converge to any number you want.

    Edit: Jesus Zurtex. Didn't realize the Reimann Series Theorems was about that.
     
    Last edited: Jun 12, 2005
  7. Jun 12, 2005 #6

    arildno

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    Still, fourierjr has certainly provided one of the more subtler "proofs" of 2=1.

    I think most who haven't studied series would be fooled by this argument.
     
  8. Jun 12, 2005 #7
    i first learned about the "riemann series theorem" about a year & a half ago but didn't know it had a name. schmoe's msg was enough for me to see the problem. i'm surprised i didn't see it before. i even typed it up & still didn't see it. :blushing:

    here's another one, by d'alembert.
    everyone knows that if the product of 2 numbers equals the product of 2 other numbers, the numbers will bee in proportion. from the definition of proportion if the 1st number is greater than the 2nd then the 3rd will be greater than the 4th, ie if ad=bc, then a:b = c:d and if a>b then c>d. so far so good. now set a=d=1 and b=c=-1 and there are 4 number that satisfy the relation ad=bc and a>b & by the proposition c>d, ie -1>1. QED
     
    Last edited: Jun 12, 2005
  9. Jun 12, 2005 #8

    krab

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Not good at all, since not true. E.g. a=2,b=1,c=-4,d=-2 violates your statement. If all a,b,c,d are positive, then what you say is true.
     
  10. Jun 12, 2005 #9
    lol :blushing: note to self: must work on critical-thinking skills...
     
  11. Jun 12, 2005 #10
    I don't understand the Riemann Series Theorem; if a series can be rearranged into converging into any value or diverging, then nothing can be said of the series. That doesn't make sense.
     
  12. Jun 12, 2005 #11

    Hurkyl

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    The ordering is part of the series. You rearrange it, you get a different series.
     
  13. Jun 12, 2005 #12
    yes it does. if you've got a series that converges conditionally, you can make it sum to anything you want. say you want it to sum to 5. add up just enough positive terms so that your partial sum is a bit more than 5, then start adding negative terms until you go less than 5... & so on. keep going back & forth like that & eventually you'll be inside a neighbourhood around 5 forever (after the sum of some N terms). so you can make a conditionally-convergent series converge to anything by arranging the terms the right way.

    another fallacy, this one from gt watson:
    consider the identity [tex]\sqrt{x-y} = i\sqrt{y-x}[/tex]
    fix x=a & y=b & get [tex]\sqrt{a-b} = i\sqrt{b-a}[/tex]
    now fix x=b & y=a & get [tex]\sqrt{b-a} = i\sqrt{a-b}[/tex]

    multiply them together & get that
    [tex]\sqrt{b-a}\sqrt{a-b} = i^2\sqrt{b-a}\sqrt{a-b}[/tex]
    ie. 1 = -1 QED

    although an identity is the same no matter what numbers you put in, the problem with this one is that x & y are FIXED at x=a & y=b. so they can't be changed to something else. haha i think i got that one
     
  14. Jun 12, 2005 #13
    That's new to me. Time to hit the textbooks.
     
  15. Jun 12, 2005 #14
    i know it's listed as a problem in pfafenberger/johnsonbaugh's foundations of mathematical analysis, in the section on conditional convergence. it's probably in baby rudin & some calculus books.
     
  16. Jun 12, 2005 #15

    shmoe

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    Did you take the course with Pfaff? He first presented it as an impressive trick for parties. Had us give him our favorite constant, I think I said pi^2/6 or something, then he proceeded to show how the alternating harmonic series could be rearranged to get this. It impressed me, but your average bloke off the street-doubtful. I'm still not sure what kind of parties he goes to.

    This should be in any intro analysis book and I'd optimistically hope at least mentioned in every calculus book, but I find that doubtful.
     
  17. Jun 13, 2005 #16
    yeah i had pfaffenberger. i don't remember him mentioning anything about any parties though.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: 2 fallacies
  1. Another fallacy (Replies: 2)

  2. Where's the fallacy (Replies: 5)

Loading...