Find a Mistake in Proof: 0,1,2,3 are All Even

  • Thread starter Thread starter Demonoid
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Mistake Proof
AI Thread Summary
The proof claiming that 0, 1, 2, and 3 are all even is flawed due to a misunderstanding in the induction step. The base case correctly identifies 0 as even, but the assumption that both k and 1 are even when k = 0 is incorrect. This leads to the erroneous conclusion that k + 1 (which equals 1) is also even. The key mistake lies in assuming the inductive hypothesis holds for k = 0, which fails since it does not apply to the case of k = 1. Ultimately, the induction step must be independent of the specific value of k, which this argument does not satisfy.
Demonoid
Messages
13
Reaction score
0
Basically I need to find a mistake in this "proof".

I claim that 0,1,2,3...are all even.

I will use induction to prove that 'n is even' for n = 0,1,2,3...
Base case is n = 0, which is true, 0 is even. I assume that the statement is true for
n = 0,1,2,3...,k and consider n = k+1. By assumption, 1 and k are both even, and thus k+1 is even as well. This means that n = 0,1,2,3... are all even.

I can't seem to find a hole in the proof. I know that 1 is not even and when we add 1 to an even number, we get an odd number. But, by assumption 1 is even, so, what do I do know ?:-p
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
Try your argument when getting from k = 0 to k = 1.
 
If k is even, then k+1 is odd...
 
There is nothing wrong in you proof...wat you are doing is dat you are assigning a subscript for each even number so A0=0, A1=2...so by induction you r getting this peculiar result which is for the subscript...:smile:
 
As LCKurtz said, the problem is between 0 and 1. You seem to be tacitly assuming that k is greater than 1 when you say that 1 is even by the inductive hypothesis. But for k=0, this isn't true since k+1=1.
 
spamiam said:
As LCKurtz said, the problem is between 0 and 1. You seem to be tacitly assuming that k is greater than 1 when you say that 1 is even by the inductive hypothesis. But for k=0, this isn't true since k+1=1.

More accurately, his argument fails because he can't choose 1 and k > 1 to add together in the induction step because there is no such k.

The real lesson in this example is that in induction arguments, the induction step must be independent of the value of k, which it isn't in this argument.
 
Suppose ,instead of the usual x,y coordinate system with an I basis vector along the x -axis and a corresponding j basis vector along the y-axis we instead have a different pair of basis vectors ,call them e and f along their respective axes. I have seen that this is an important subject in maths My question is what physical applications does such a model apply to? I am asking here because I have devoted quite a lot of time in the past to understanding convectors and the dual...
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In Dirac’s Principles of Quantum Mechanics published in 1930 he introduced a “convenient notation” he referred to as a “delta function” which he treated as a continuum analog to the discrete Kronecker delta. The Kronecker delta is simply the indexed components of the identity operator in matrix algebra Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/what-exactly-is-diracs-delta-function/ by...

Similar threads

Replies
8
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
625
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
10
Views
2K
3
Replies
105
Views
6K
Back
Top