Return Styles: Pseud0ch, Terminal, Valhalla, NES, Geocities, Blue Moon.

Pages: 1-4041-

1 = 0

Name: Anonymous 2007-01-26 15:14

Proof:
1 = 1 + (-1 + 1) + (-1 + 1) + (-1 + 1) + ....
  = (1 + -1) + (1 + -1) + (1 + -1) + (1 + -1) + ......
  = 0

kekekeke

Name: Anonymous 2007-01-26 15:14

BTW, the second line is the associative property.

Name: Anonymous 2007-01-26 15:15

The second line to the third line, I mean.

Name: Anonymous 2007-01-26 16:00

1 + (-1 + 1) + (-1 + 1) + (-1 + 1) + .... = indeterminant

Name: Anonymous 2007-01-26 16:02

>>4
Indeterminate*

Name: Anonymous 2007-01-26 17:07

Just because you moved the parenthesis around doesn't make the result different.

Name: Anonymous 2007-01-26 17:27

>>6
Truth, as per the associative property of addition. Thus, 1 = 0.

Name: Anonymous 2007-01-26 17:49

>>7
Associative property of addition says a + (b + c) = (a + b) + c. This can be extended by induction in various ways to any finite sum, but not necessarily to infinite sums.

Name: Anonymous 2007-01-26 20:55

>>8
For the simple reason that the OP provided for us.

>>4
1 + (-1 + 1) + (-1 + 1) + (-1 + 1) + ... = 1. What we are learning ITT is that
1 + (-1 + 1) + (-1 + 1) + (-1 + 1) + ... != (1 + -1) + (1 + -1) + (1 + -1) + (1 + -1) + ...
.

By the way, there are only three dots in an ellipsis.

Name: Anonymous 2007-01-26 21:08

If you can come up with a field where the additive identity element and the multiplicative identity element are equal, then yes..  1 = 0 IN THAT FIELD.

Note this field isn't the real numbers (is that even a field?)

Name: Anonymous 2007-01-26 21:39

>>10
Er, wouldn't you only have that [the additive identity element in that field] = [the multiplicative identity element in that field] in that field? Even if they were called 1 and 0 respectively, they wouldn't be the same numbers we know.

Name: Anonymous 2007-01-26 21:40

>>10
It is by definition not a field. 0 and 1 are required to be different elements as part of the field axioms. Furthermore, even if you ignore that axiom, you end up with the trivial field {0} being the only one in which the additive and multiplicative identities are equal.

Name: Anonymous 2007-01-26 22:29

>>4
Not necessarily.  The Cesaro summation of that series is 1/2.

Name: Anonymous 2007-01-26 22:43

>>13
more liek 0

Name: Anonymous 2007-01-26 23:09 (sage)

>>13
Only if you leave out the brackets, dumbshit.

Name: Anonymous 2007-01-27 0:56

(1+-1)=a
(-1+1)=b
a=b=1-1=0
a+a+a+...=0+0+0+...=b+b+b+...=0

"1 = 1 + (-1 + 1) + (-1 + 1) + (-1 + 1) + ....
  = (1 + -1) + (1 + -1) + (1 + -1) + (1 + -1) + ......
  = 0"
1=1+a+a+a+...=1+0
1=b+b+b+...+1=0+1
1=1

Name: Anonymous 2007-01-27 0:56

>>15
You fail at basic math.  Go back and do the result.

Name: Anonymous 2007-01-27 1:16

>>16
(1+-1)=a
(-1+1)=b
a=b=1-1=0
a+a+a+...=0+0+0+...=b+b+b+...=0

"1 = 1 + (-1 + 1) + (-1 + 1) + (-1 + 1) + ....
  = (1 + -1) + (1 + -1) + (1 + -1) + (1 + -1) + ......
  = 0"
1=1+b+b+b+...=1+0
1=a+a+a+...+1=0+1
1=1
*

fix'd

Name: Anonymous 2007-01-27 2:04 (sage)

>>17
This involves infinity, so it's not 'basic' math. Additionally, I don't fail.

1 + (-1 + 1) + (-1 + 1) + (-1 + 1) + ...
   means
1 + sum 0..inf (-1 + 1) == 1 + sum 0..inf (0) == 1
   and not
sum n=0..inf (-1^n)

Name: Anonymous 2007-01-27 4:31

>>19
You do fail at basic mathematics dumbass because your expression is not a Cesàro summation for this series.

Name: Anonymous 2007-01-27 17:23

0 * infinity lawl

Name: Anonymous 2007-01-27 19:05 (sage)

>>20
Which expression? And how exactly is that relevant?
stop failing plox

Name: Anonymous 2007-01-28 14:46

law of L. Jenkins; always devide your outcome by 0

Name: Anonymous 2007-01-29 7:08

Perhaps this thread is just an elaborate troll to get people to talk about Guido Grandi?

Name: Anonymous 2007-01-29 15:51

uh, no...

1 = 1 + (-1 + 1) + (-1 + 1) + (-1 + 1) + ....
  = (1 + -1) + (1 + -1) + (1 + -1) + (1 + -1) + ... + 1
  = 1

Name: Anonymous 2007-01-29 17:43

>>25

no.

Name: Anonymous 2007-01-29 18:06

>>24
I was thinking of the whole making something out of nothing concept but no, this is just a simple troll.

Name: dfgtfd 2007-01-29 20:53 (sage)

1*0=1*6
1=6
lolz

Name: Anonymous 2007-01-30 3:18

Name: Anonymous 2007-01-30 10:26

>>26
That's not a compelling argument.

Name: Anonymous 2007-01-30 10:27

Name: Anonymous 2007-01-30 11:50

>>18
>>25
same thing

Name: Anonymous 2007-01-30 18:27

The problem is that the partial sums , sum (i=0 to k) (-1)^i
doesn't really converge to a limit, so the infinite sum cannot be defined.

Name: Anonymous 2007-01-30 19:27

Simple Calc

gb2/grammerskool

Name: Anonymous 2007-02-01 17:52

I haven't been here for months and still there are dipshits debating the most retarded math problems - this one being a case in point.

>>25
>>18
:)
>>26
retard
>>1
retard in training

Name: Anonymous 2007-02-01 18:28

>>35
Fail nigger, because >>25 and >>18 makes no sense.

Name: Anonymous 2007-02-01 21:12

>>36
You're really retarded, then. 18 makes perfect sense.

Name: Anonymous 2007-02-01 23:20

Tell me >>25, what does the ellipses in:
(1 + -1) + (1 + -1) + (1 + -1) + (1 + -1) + ... + 1
supposed to mean?

Name: Anonymous 2007-02-02 10:54

>>1
Fail

1 = 1 + (-1 + 1) + (-1 + 1) + (-1 + 1) + ....
you moved the one to the other side leaving you with->(0)  =      0->(1 + -1) + (1 + -1) + (1 + -1) + (1 + -1) + ......
 0 = 0

FAIL return to school retard

Name: Anonymous 2007-02-02 11:34

DOES ANYONE THINK >>1 IS NOT A RETARD?

IF SO YOU ARE A RETARD!

Name: Anonymous 2007-02-02 11:35

>>40
actually he could be a troll, but lolz if anyone agrees with >>1 they are retard

Name: Anonymous 2007-02-02 15:49

The series fails the nth term test...plain and simple.

This series was actually used once by a mathematician (his name eludes me right now..) to prove the existence of God.  He claimed he had created something out of nothing.

Interesting concept anyway.

Name: Anonymous 2007-02-02 16:01

>>37
1=a+a+a+...+1=0+1

no, >>18 does not make sense. What the fuck is that 1 in the end of the infinite a's supposed to mean?

Name: Anonymous 2007-02-02 17:55 (sage)

>>43
A certain constant (1), added to an infinite sum?

Name: Anonymous 2007-02-02 19:40

>>43
>>(1+-1)=a
>>(-1+1)=b

These are some basic variable identities. The OP set them up, and 18 continued to use them.

>>a=b=1-1=0
>>a+a+a+...=0+0+0+...=b+b+b+...=0

Just to make sure you're following, he's now showing you how any number of each variable always equals zero, because all of the parts equal zero. It's also setting up one of the most important pieces, which is that a and b are equal.

>>"1 = 1 + (-1 + 1) + (-1 + 1) + (-1 + 1) + ....
>>  = (1 + -1) + (1 + -1) + (1 + -1) + (1 + -1) + ......
>>  = 0"

This is what the OP put, which is then proven wrong in the next bit by substituting in the variables.

>>1=1+b+b+b+...=1+0
>>1=a+a+a+...+1=0+1
>>1=1

This is the final part, which proves the OP wrong.
An arbitrarily long series of A and B both equal zero and are equal to each other. Therefore an arbitrarily long series of A preceded by a 1 equals one. Because a series of A is also equal to a series of B, it is NOT true that a series of A plus 1 is equal to a series of B.

What IS true is that a series of A plus 1 is equal to a series of B plus 1, which is represented by placing the missing 1 at the end of the series.

This then completes the 1=1 identity.

Name: Anonymous 2007-02-02 19:43

>>45
You can't put anything at the end of a .... >>18 fails for that reason alone.

Name: Anonymous 2007-02-02 19:54

>>46
Who said anything about it necessarily being an infinite series?

The OP's attempt and 18 both work for any arbitrarily large, finite number of As and Bs. It doesn't even have to be a large number; as long as there's one variable instance, the proof still works.

Nice try on that technicality.

Name: Anonymous 2007-02-02 21:26

>>47
The series is infinite. The ... and the end says it's infinite.

The **ONLY** way that the OP fake proof can end up with 1 = 0 is when the series is infinite. If it is not infinite, then you can put the 1 and the end of it and you end up with 1 = 1. Get it? If it is infinite, you CANNOT put the 1 at the end; that is just how infinite sums work.

Basically, what the fake proof says is that you cannot use the associative property of addition on infinite sums.

Name: Anonymous 2007-02-02 22:10 (sage)

>>48
If it is infinite, you CANNOT put the 1 at the end; that is just how infinite sums work.
SPOILER: You can operate on an infinite series.
There is a difference between 'putting it at the end' (impossible since there is no end), and simply adding an expression to the sequence as a whole. The addition doesn't try to append to the sequence, it operates on it.

Name: Anonymous 2007-02-02 22:44

>>49
You can not add anything to this infinite series in any sense, because it does not converge.

Name: Anonymous 2007-02-02 22:56 (sage)

>>50
(-1+1)+(-1+1)+... trivially converges to 0.

Name: Anonymous 2007-02-03 0:51

>>51
Prove it

Name: Anonymous 2007-02-03 1:21

>>52
-1+1=0
0+0=0

Name: Anonymous 2007-02-03 3:44

This infinite some does not converge in the sense that the limit of the partial sums does not exist. Now go away.

Name: Anonymous 2007-02-03 4:21

>>53
Prove addition over the real numbers works, then come talk to me, kthnx

>>54
Sumone fails spelling. c wut i did ther?

Name: Anonymous 2007-02-03 10:04

This was some masterful trolling

Name: Anonymous 2007-02-03 10:46

no shit

Name: 1 2007-02-03 13:27

>>56
Why thank you. I also made the Irrational numbers cannot exist thread.

Name: Anonymous 2007-02-03 13:32

Wikipedia says it is non-convergent so it must be true. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grandi%27s_series)

In modern mathematics, the sum of an infinite series is defined to be equal to the limit of the sequence of its "partial sums", if it exists. The sequence of partial sums of Grandi's series is (1, 0, 1, 0, …) - it clearly does not "approach" any number ( although it does have two accumulation points - 0 and 1 ). Therefore, Grandi's series is non-convergent, or oscillating.

Name: Anonymous 2007-02-03 19:00 (sage)

>>59
That's a different series. Note the brackets.

Name: Anonymous 2007-02-03 19:49

>>60
It doesn't matter if there are brackets or not because of the properties of addition.

Name: Anonymous 2007-02-03 19:52

>>61
The whole point of this topic is that you can't apply the associative property to infinite series.

Name: Anonymous 2007-02-03 20:19

>>62
Unless they absolutely converge.

Name: Anonymous 2007-02-04 0:37 (sage)

>>63
Proof?

Don't change these.
Name: Email:
Entire Thread Thread List