Why is 1 not equal to 0 in this proof?

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter mark2142
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Eqautions Precalculus
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The forum discussion centers around a faulty mathematical proof that incorrectly concludes that 1 equals 0 by dividing by zero. The proof begins with the equation x=1 and follows through valid steps until it attempts to divide by (x-1), which equals zero when x=1. This division is invalid, leading to the erroneous conclusion. Participants emphasize that including a false statement in a proof allows for any conclusion to be drawn, highlighting the importance of recognizing the multiplicative inverse and the implications of dividing by zero.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of basic algebraic equations and identities
  • Knowledge of the concept of multiplicative inverses
  • Familiarity with the implications of dividing by zero in mathematics
  • Basic principles of mathematical proofs and logical reasoning
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the properties of real numbers, particularly regarding zero and division
  • Learn about the concept of limits and how they relate to division by zero
  • Explore common fallacies in mathematical proofs, focusing on invalid operations
  • Investigate the role of assumptions in mathematical reasoning and proofs
USEFUL FOR

Students of mathematics, educators teaching algebra and proof techniques, and anyone interested in understanding the foundations of mathematical logic and error analysis.

  • #61
mark2142 said:
(And somebody said it’s proving 1=0 by assuming 1=0. I didn’t get that.)
##25\dfrac{m}{s}## is a quantity of ##25## meter per second. It says what happens within the timespan of one second, namely a change in location of ##25## meter. It normalizes time. One second becomes the unit, i.e. ##1## second = ##1##.

By writing ##\dfrac{x}{x-1}## you introduced the unit ##x-1## which thus is treated like ##1## wheras it still equals ##x-1=1-1=0.## In this sense, you treated ##1## as ##0##. You made ##1## second ##0## seconds.
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
  • #62
jbriggs444 said:
This is a new predicate that we can get from the previous one by squaring both sides
You mean multiplying by ##x## on both side.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: jbriggs444
  • #63
This divide by 0 was a joke / trick we used to play on the younger kids at school when I was a teenager. And that was a long time ago! We used to set them up with the basics and say look, this proves 1 = 0 and watch as they approached the maths teacher for help.

Why are we still discussing this in a TWO page thread?! Dividing by zero is just not allowed. End of.

And remind yourself of when it was posted here...
 
  • Like
  • Skeptical
Likes   Reactions: PeroK and fresh_42
  • #64
PS people my age may remember that The Who released a single in 1971 called "wont get ****** again" :wink:
 
  • #65
DrJohn said:
This divide by 0 was a joke / trick we used to play on the younger kids at school when I was a teenager. And that was a long time ago! We used to set them up with the basics and say look, this proves 1 = 0 and watch as they approached the maths teacher for help.

Why are we still discussing this in a TWO page thread?! Dividing by zero is just not allowed. End of.

And remind yourself of when it was posted here...
No. This is exactly why math in school does not work. Instead of providing any insights, it's simply forbidden. This is not how education works, at least not on PF. Why is it forbidden? You only offer: "because it is". Truth is, the why question can be answered on many levels, and we did not even touch all of them!

Shut up and calculate might work in quantum physics, but it does not work in mathematics. Not even at school, as can be seen at any school of your choice.
 
  • Like
  • Skeptical
Likes   Reactions: SammyS and PeroK
  • #66
fresh_42 said:
No. This is exactly why math in school does not work. Instead of providing any insights, it's simply forbidden.
When I was at school I could see for myself that division by zero was problematic. I don't see any deficiency in my reasoning in those days that required advanced abstract mathematics. I certainly wasn't guilty of "shut up and calculate". Quite the opposite!
 
  • Skeptical
Likes   Reactions: fresh_42
  • #67
Since this thread has obviously turned into a general mocking about why we discuss it at all, I will close it by now. The original question has been answered on many levels anyway.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
1K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
1K
  • · Replies 55 ·
2
Replies
55
Views
6K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K