Interesting Problem from Gelfand's Algebra; Relevance?

AI Thread Summary
The problem from Gelfand's Algebra raises the question of whether the father of the son of NN and the son of the father of NN are the same individual. It highlights that NN's biological son must have NN as a father, but NN's biological father may not necessarily be NN's son due to potential siblings. The discussion suggests that the problem serves to illustrate the concept that both a² and (-a)² equal a², emphasizing the importance of understanding variables in mathematical contexts. Participants also question the assumption that NN must be male, suggesting that the interpretation remains valid regardless of NN's gender. This exploration encourages deeper thinking about the implications of variable representation in mathematics.
Axel Harper
Messages
17
Reaction score
2

Homework Statement


Problem 63 from Gelfand's book Algebra asks "are the father of the son of NN and the son of the father of NN the same person?"

Homework Equations


This problem is in a section about the square of a sum formula.
(a+b)2 = a2+2ab+b2

The Attempt at a Solution


If NN has a biological son x, then x's biological father must be NN. If NN has a biological father y, then y's biological son is not necessarily NN because NN could have brothers.
When I first did this problem a couple years ago I wondered how this was relevant at all. Now I interpret this as Gelfand's way of introducing the idea that both a2 and (-a)2 equal a2. Rational exponents are covered already in an earlier section. Can anybody confirm this, or does anyone have a differing interpretation?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Axel Harper said:
If NN has a biological son x, then x's biological father must be NN. If NN has a biological father y, then y's biological son is not necessarily NN because NN could have brothers.

I would think you're right. If you are, the answer would be "not always".
 
Axel Harper said:

The Attempt at a Solution


If NN has a biological son x, then x's biological father must be NN. If NN has a biological father y, then y's biological son is not necessarily NN because NN could have brothers.
When I first did this problem a couple years ago I wondered how this was relevant at all. Now I interpret this as Gelfand's way of introducing the idea that both a2 and (-a)2 equal a2. Rational exponents are covered already in an earlier section. Can anybody confirm this, or does anyone have a differing interpretation?

Why does NN have to be male?

My thought was that the purpose of the problem is to encourage thinking about variables. In math history there were problems with solving ##x^2 = 4##. Mathematicians would avoid a negative solution, such as ##x=-2##. Similar issues arose with imaginary numbers.

I thought NN could be a woman. We may bias our interpretation of a variable if we impose a restriction.
 
thelema418 said:
Why does NN have to be male?
...
Excellent point !
 
thelema418 said:
Why does NN have to be male?

That's a good point. I think we could still interpret the problem in the same manner if NN is a woman because we still can't guarantee that her son's father is the same person as her father's son.
 
Back
Top