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

What is the flaw with this proof?

  1. Oct 9, 2008 #1
    x==Sqrt[0+Sqrt[0+Sqrt[x+Sqrt[0+...]]]]
    x==Sqrt[x]
    x==1 and zero
    1==Sqrt[0+Sqrt[0+Sqrt[x+Sqrt[0+...]]]]==0
    1==0
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Oct 9, 2008 #2

    CRGreathouse

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    Your third line incorrectly assumes that any solution to the second line is a solution to the first line. This is not the case.

    Consider
    x = 7
    x * 0 = 7 * 0
    0 = 0, which holds for all x (including 2)
    2 = 7
     
  4. Oct 10, 2008 #3
    I am not multiplying by zero in any step though, i am just saying that Sqrt[0+Sqrt[0+Sqrt[x+Sqrt[0+...]]]]==x
    means that Sqrt[0+x]==x
     
  5. Oct 10, 2008 #4

    CRGreathouse

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    You are not multiplying by zero, correct. You are saying that line 1 implies line 2, which is a correct statement. You further claim (implicitly) that an x-value solving line 2 solves line 1, which is incorrect.
     
  6. Oct 10, 2008 #5
    why does it not follow?
     
  7. Oct 10, 2008 #6

    CRGreathouse

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    Why would it?

    If someone is 52, then they're in their 50s. If someone is in their 50s, they might be 58. If someone is 58, they are eligible to join the 55+ club. But it doesn't follow that someone who is 52 might be able to join the 55+ club.

    If x = -3 then x^2 = 9. If x^2 = 9 it follows that x is 3 or -3. But it does not follow that both 3 = -3 and -3 = -3.
     
  8. Oct 10, 2008 #7
    Just because the zeros of a function equal zero when put through the function, doesn't mean that the zeros equal each other.

    (x+1)(x-1)=0
    x=1;x=-1
    1≠-1
     
  9. Oct 11, 2008 #8
    thanks.
    btw epkid08, that is not what i was saying. i was saying that value of the function was x, not the zeros of f(x)
     
  10. Oct 11, 2008 #9
    It was an analogy. The message was that if x = {a,b}, a≠b.

    x=√(x)
    x={0,1}
    0≠1
     
  11. Oct 12, 2008 #10

    CRGreathouse

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    My message was that if F(x) --> G(x), and G(x) holds precisely for x in X, F(x) need not hold for all x in X.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?