This CAN'T be true (Is my proof that 1=0 correct?)

  • Context: High School 
  • Thread starter Thread starter MevsEinstein
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Proof
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around a proof presented by a participant claiming that the sum of all natural numbers equals zero, based on manipulations of a formula for the sum of increasing powers and the controversial result from Ramanujan regarding the sum of integers. Participants explore the implications of differentiating the series and substituting values, questioning the validity of the proof and the handling of infinite series.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant differentiates the formula for the sum of increasing powers and claims to derive that ##1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + ... = 1/0##, leading to the conclusion that ##0 = 1##.
  • Another participant clarifies that Ramanujan's assertion about the sum of integers being ##-1/12## involves manipulation of infinite series, which does not imply that the series converges in the traditional sense.
  • Concerns are raised about the implications of dividing by zero in mathematical proofs, with one participant stating that such an action allows for proving any statement.
  • Some participants emphasize that the formula for the sum of increasing powers is valid only for values of ##p## where ##|p| < 1##, indicating that substituting ##p = 1## leads to divergence.
  • There is a repeated assertion that manipulating divergent series can yield counterintuitive results, but these manipulations must be understood within specific contexts.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express disagreement regarding the validity of the proof and the interpretation of Ramanujan's results. There is no consensus on the nature of the fallacy in the original proof, and multiple viewpoints on the handling of infinite series and divergence are presented.

Contextual Notes

Participants note that substituting values that lead to division by zero is problematic and that the results derived from manipulating infinite series require careful contextual understanding. The discussion highlights the limitations of applying certain mathematical formulas outside their valid ranges.

MevsEinstein
Messages
124
Reaction score
36
TL;DR
I used some Calculus and the Ramanujan sum to make this proof.
After learning about this formula for the sum of increasing powers - ##1+p+p^2+p^3+...=1/(1-p)## - I decided to differentiate both sides of the equation, getting: ##1+2p+3p^2+4p^3+...=1/((1-p))^2##. Substituting ##1## for ##p##, I get: ##1+2+3+4+...=1/0##. But Ramanujan said that ##1+2+3+4+...=-1/12##, so ##1/0=1/-12##, meaning ##0=-12##, meaning ##0=1## (dividing both sides by ##-12##). There MUST be something wrong about this proof, since ##0## is NOT equal to one. May someone help me find the fallacy?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
MevsEinstein said:
Summary:: I used some Calculus and the Ramanujan sum to make this proof.

After learning about this formula for the sum of increasing powers - 1+p+p2+p3+...=1/(1−p) - I
This formula holds for |p|<1, neither p=1 nor larger.
 
For starters, Ramanujan did NOT say that the simple summation of the integers 1+2+3+... is equal to -1/12.
What he did was show that you could manipulate infinite series in certain ways to make sense of some mathematical formulas involving them. Without manipulating these infinite series you don't get these counterintuitive answers. After all, it is obvious to see, and trivial to prove, that summing up all the positive integers leads to an answer of infinity. So any time you see what looks like a divergent series being set equal to a finite number then you know it's either wrong or they have manipulated it in some fashion so that the answer makes sense in a certain context. Edit: Or it only makes sense for certain values of ##p##, as @anuttarasammyak points out in the post above.

See this video for more info.

I can't point to the exact fallacy involving the sum of increasing powers since math is not my specialty, but I'd bet that it also involves manipulating the infinite series in a certain way. Plugging in anything greater than or equal to 1 for ##p## obviously gives you a divergent series, so there must be some sort of more complicated mathematical analysis going on here if it turns out it's equal to ##1/(1-p)##.
 
If it some point in a mathematical process you divide by zero (even disguised as 1-p when p=1) then you can prove ANYTHING.
 
anuttarasammyak said:
This formula holds for |p|<1, neither p=1 nor larger.
Substituting ##-1##, you get ##1-1+1-1+...=1/2##, which is a true cesaro sum.
 
Drakkith said:
For starters, Ramanujan did NOT say that the simple summation of the integers 1+2+3+... is equal to -1/12.
What he did was show that you could manipulate infinite series in certain ways to make sense of some mathematical formulas involving them. Without manipulating these infinite series you don't get these counterintuitive answers. After all, it is obvious to see, and trivial to prove, that summing up all the positive integers leads to an answer of infinity. So any time you see what looks like a divergent series being set equal to a finite number then you know it's either wrong or they have manipulated it in some fashion so that the answer makes sense in a certain context. Edit: Or it only makes sense for certain values of ##p##, as @anuttarasammyak points out in the post above.

See this video for more info.

I can't point to the exact fallacy involving the sum of increasing powers since math is not my specialty, but I'd bet that it also involves manipulating the infinite series in a certain way. Plugging in anything greater than or equal to 1 for ##p## obviously gives you a divergent series, so there must be some sort of more complicated mathematical analysis going on here if it turns out it's equal to ##1/(1-p)##.
Thanks for your answer! It's interesting that you know about Ramanujan even though Math isn't your speciality.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Drakkith
phinds said:
If it some point in a mathematical process you divide by zero (even disguised as 1-p when p=1) then you can prove ANYTHING.
I will have to find a situation where I can divide by zero first.
 
MevsEinstein said:
I will have to find a situation where I can divide by zero first.
You already have.
 
PeroK said:
You already have.
You're absolutely right.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
532
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K