What is the Flaw in the 'Proof' That -1 Equals 1?

  • Thread starter Thread starter spec138
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Proof
spec138
Messages
4
Reaction score
0
Hi all. I found this "proof" and was just wondering if there is an error in it or not, because I couldn't find it. Any ideas?

-1/1=1/-1
sqrt(-1/1)=sqrt(1/-1)
sqrt(-1)/sqrt(1)=sqrt(1)/sqrt(-1)
i/1=1/i
i*i/1=i*1/i
i^2/1=i/i
-1=1 ?
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
sqrt(-1/1)=sqrt(1/-1)
sqrt(-1)/sqrt(1)=sqrt(1)/sqrt(-1)

The transition between these two steps is invalid. There is no reason you would be allowed to do this.

There is a basic property of the square root function that sqrt(a)*sqrt(b)=sqrt(a*b) where a and b are positive, but -1/1 isn't positive so we don't get to use that here.

I've actually seen this one before a page promoting "Time Cube" theory!
 
The problem comes from writing simple "sqrt" functions rather than "+/-sqrt". IOW, whenever you take the square root, you have to take into consideration that there are two square roots of any complex number, which differ by a factor of -1. Deciding which roots to take to maintain an equality often requires working through exactly the kind of computation you have shown.

I would have looked at the second line in your "proof" and decide which sign each sqrt should have. To do that I would go through pretty much the proof you have, and when I got "-1=1", I would say, "Oh - that's not it - I guess the two sqrts have to have opposite signs to maintain the equality."

I know that looks circular, but it's really how you decide which root to take. It might be clearer with pure real numbers:

(-2)^2 = (2)^2
sqrt((-2)^2) = sqrt((2)^2)
-2 = 2

oops ... should have had a minus sign in line 2!
 
Just to add this wasn't my proof and I knew it wasn't true. I just couldn't find the mistake. Thanks guys.
 
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...
Fermat's Last Theorem has long been one of the most famous mathematical problems, and is now one of the most famous theorems. It simply states that the equation $$ a^n+b^n=c^n $$ has no solutions with positive integers if ##n>2.## It was named after Pierre de Fermat (1607-1665). The problem itself stems from the book Arithmetica by Diophantus of Alexandria. It gained popularity because Fermat noted in his copy "Cubum autem in duos cubos, aut quadratoquadratum in duos quadratoquadratos, et...
Thread 'Imaginary Pythagorus'
I posted this in the Lame Math thread, but it's got me thinking. Is there any validity to this? Or is it really just a mathematical trick? Naively, I see that i2 + plus 12 does equal zero2. But does this have a meaning? I know one can treat the imaginary number line as just another axis like the reals, but does that mean this does represent a triangle in the complex plane with a hypotenuse of length zero? Ibix offered a rendering of the diagram using what I assume is matrix* notation...
Back
Top