Proof 0=1

When you see these kinda things, it makes me wonder if we're really sure of anything... like if 2+2=4? What is to say that that is correct? Why does 1+1=2? How do we know 2 is the number after one lol?
Life is so confusing 🤯

Linspiring

@Katzenschinken said in #18:

Where is the last Dollar?

When they each paid $10 the distribution of their payment should add up to $30. 3x10=30
But since they each got 1$ back they now they each paid $9 so the distribution of their payment should now add up to $27.
And it does. $25 went to the hotel + $2 went to the clerk.
$25+$2 = 3x$9
The mistake is still expecting their payment to add up to $30 when it should add up to $27 now.

@Katzenschinken said in #18: > Where is the last Dollar? When they each paid $10 the distribution of their payment should add up to $30. 3x10=30 But since they each got 1$ back they now they each paid $9 so the distribution of their payment should now add up to $27. And it does. $25 went to the hotel + $2 went to the clerk. $25+$2 = 3x$9 The mistake is still expecting their payment to add up to $30 when it should add up to $27 now.

Linspiring

It is true that if you made one line of balls a foot apart, and one line of balls 6 inches apart, this line would have twice as many as the other one, but you can't say the same when you just add one at the beginning.

It boggles my mind that you can actually think that. Do a thought experiment. We are in outer space together, in our space suits and I put the extra ball at the beginning of one of the lines. You could pick up the ball, touch it hold it feel and see that it's real and that it exists and still say that after I added it there's not one more ball? As I say, mindboggling lol.

Using infinity, you can create a lot of strange things like 1 = 0, or even 123456789 = 0
Then shouldn't that be a clue that you need to reevaluate how you think about infinity? I would have thought it would be. 1=0 is not an unsolved issue. We KNOW it to be false. So if we start with a known correct equation like 1=1 and we apply operations to the right side of it that rely on certain principles to keep it the same and then we end up with 1=0 that's proof that the principles that we applied were incorrect isn't it?. Mathematicians I think would agree with that in just about any other case but for some reason I can't understand the thinking and reasoning starts to get funky when it comes to infinity and we throw out well established methods and rules we use for everything else to accommodate these funky ideas. Why?

Let me ask you this. Are there any dire practical consequences that would come about if you said that infinity +1>infinity? Would it break something somewhere else?

@ChessMathNerd said in #17: Thanks for your response. I know you are very knowledgeable about accepted math principles so it's interesting to hear the way serious math people think about it. But just because someone knows more than me about something, in this case A LOT more than me doesn't mean I have to accept everything they say. And I will never believe this. I mean I don't ever want to have a closed mind to anything, but nothing anyone has ever said before has convinced me and I don't think it ever will. > It is true that if you made one line of balls a foot apart, and one line of balls 6 inches apart, this line would have twice as many as the other one, but you can't say the same when you just add one at the beginning. It boggles my mind that you can actually think that. Do a thought experiment. We are in outer space together, in our space suits and I put the extra ball at the beginning of one of the lines. You could pick up the ball, touch it hold it feel and see that it's real and that it exists and still say that after I added it there's not one more ball? As I say, mindboggling lol. > Using infinity, you can create a lot of strange things like 1 = 0, or even 123456789 = 0 Then shouldn't that be a clue that you need to reevaluate how you think about infinity? I would have thought it would be. 1=0 is not an unsolved issue. We KNOW it to be false. So if we start with a known correct equation like 1=1 and we apply operations to the right side of it that rely on certain principles to keep it the same and then we end up with 1=0 that's proof that the principles that we applied were incorrect isn't it?. Mathematicians I think would agree with that in just about any other case but for some reason I can't understand the thinking and reasoning starts to get funky when it comes to infinity and we throw out well established methods and rules we use for everything else to accommodate these funky ideas. Why? Let me ask you this. Are there any dire practical consequences that would come about if you said that infinity +1>infinity? Would it break something somewhere else?

Lasker5

1-0=1

1>0

1-0=1 1>0

ChessMathNerd

@Linspiring "Let me ask you this. Are there any dire practical consequences that would come about if you said that infinity +1>infinity? Would it break something somewhere else?"
No. In fact, the reason that I accept this paradox as unflawed is because of some very high level mathematics in calculus.
As I said, it is only because of infinity, and I don't think that I view infinity the same way as a normal person would.
You are right, you don't have to accept it, and I understand that it doesn't make any sense.
I am confident that if you studied a lot more math your mind would change, but I respect your opinion.
P.S, generally, I have no respect for a math opinion, because math is very absolute and you are always either right or wrong, but this is so weird that I feel for normal people and mathematicians, there really are two different answers. lol.
"It boggles my mind that you can actually think that. Do a thought experiment. We are in outer space together, in our space suits and I put the extra ball at the beginning of one of the lines. You could pick up the ball, touch it hold it feel and see that it's real and that it exists and still say that after I added it there's not one more ball? As I say, mindboggling lol."
Yeah. I am sorry but I can't really explain why I think that any more clearly without using some high level math to show it.
The only way we really have to compare lines with infinite balls is this. We have to take an equal length sample of each, count the balls, and then compare them right? (You may disagree with this because you see where I am going, but I don't know how else it can be done)
If you do this, since the balls are spaced the same it each line, every time we do this, we will get equal numbers, no matter how large a sample we take.
therefore, in mathematical terms, the lines have the same number of balls. That is a way of saying in words, something in calculus that is called a limit.
I hope it doesn't seem like I am arguing with you. I just find this a fascinating discussion. :)

@Linspiring "Let me ask you this. Are there any dire practical consequences that would come about if you said that infinity +1>infinity? Would it break something somewhere else?" No. In fact, the reason that I accept this paradox as unflawed is because of some very high level mathematics in calculus. As I said, it is only because of infinity, and I don't think that I view infinity the same way as a normal person would. You are right, you don't have to accept it, and I understand that it doesn't make any sense. I am confident that if you studied a lot more math your mind would change, but I respect your opinion. P.S, generally, I have no respect for a math opinion, because math is very absolute and you are always either right or wrong, but this is so weird that I feel for normal people and mathematicians, there really are two different answers. lol. "It boggles my mind that you can actually think that. Do a thought experiment. We are in outer space together, in our space suits and I put the extra ball at the beginning of one of the lines. You could pick up the ball, touch it hold it feel and see that it's real and that it exists and still say that after I added it there's not one more ball? As I say, mindboggling lol." Yeah. I am sorry but I can't really explain why I think that any more clearly without using some high level math to show it. The only way we really have to compare lines with infinite balls is this. We have to take an equal length sample of each, count the balls, and then compare them right? (You may disagree with this because you see where I am going, but I don't know how else it can be done) If you do this, since the balls are spaced the same it each line, every time we do this, we will get equal numbers, no matter how large a sample we take. therefore, in mathematical terms, the lines have the same number of balls. That is a way of saying in words, something in calculus that is called a limit. I hope it doesn't seem like I am arguing with you. I just find this a fascinating discussion. :)

Linspiring

I find it endlessly fascinating too. Get it?
I took introductory calc in high school but that was decades ago and obviously I remember hardly anything about it. I'm remembering the very first lesson with finding the area under a curve and breaking it up into chunks and the upper limits of all the chunks together are the upper limit of the curve, likewise for the lower limit. And when you increase the amount of chunks to infinity you can do some math on it to simplify. But not exactly seeing how you would use that to say that infinity plus a non zero finite is the same as infinity plus zero.
A while ago you began a paragraph with the disclaimer that you didn't want to offend or insult me, I thank you for that and I say the same thing now. But I think the thing about proving something fishy, by your own admission, by using high level complicated math is that the complexity of the high level math can serve to obfuscate and confuse matters and detach us from our common sense. And when that happens we become susceptible to a accepting as true any number of strange notions, such as 1=0. If a simple premise that goes against all our instincts and common sense and contradicts known axioms, hence why we call it a paradox, and requires the smoke and mirrors of high level calc, to justify it then maybe you might want to think it though again?

The only way we really have to compare lines with infinite balls is this. We have to take an equal length sample of each, count the balls, and then compare them right?
If they were lines but these are rays. By that I mean rays have a starting point and lines don't. So being as such it is not enough to do as you suggested. That method would yield insufficient information to make a comparison. The location of the starting points needs to be taken into account also.

I find it endlessly fascinating too. Get it? I took introductory calc in high school but that was decades ago and obviously I remember hardly anything about it. I'm remembering the very first lesson with finding the area under a curve and breaking it up into chunks and the upper limits of all the chunks together are the upper limit of the curve, likewise for the lower limit. And when you increase the amount of chunks to infinity you can do some math on it to simplify. But not exactly seeing how you would use that to say that infinity plus a non zero finite is the same as infinity plus zero. A while ago you began a paragraph with the disclaimer that you didn't want to offend or insult me, I thank you for that and I say the same thing now. But I think the thing about proving something fishy, by your own admission, by using high level complicated math is that the complexity of the high level math can serve to obfuscate and confuse matters and detach us from our common sense. And when that happens we become susceptible to a accepting as true any number of strange notions, such as 1=0. If a simple premise that goes against all our instincts and common sense and contradicts known axioms, hence why we call it a paradox, and requires the smoke and mirrors of high level calc, to justify it then maybe you might want to think it though again? >The only way we really have to compare lines with infinite balls is this. We have to take an equal length sample of each, count the balls, and then compare them right? If they were lines but these are rays. By that I mean rays have a starting point and lines don't. So being as such it is not enough to do as you suggested. That method would yield insufficient information to make a comparison. The location of the starting points needs to be taken into account also.

CreativeThinking

@ChessMathNerd Could you please explain why we are converting an infinte equation to a finite one (i.e., from ... to 1=0)? Are we to assume that infinity÷infinity = 1?

ChessMathNerd

@CreativeThinking We are using the fact that there is an infinite string of (1-1) or (-1+1). This turns into 0+0+0+0....
This is the critical step, where we assume that 0+0+0+0+0+0..... = 0, allowing us to reach the paradox.
Honestly, there are some situations in advanced math where that is not true, but it is what makes this contradiction cool.

@CreativeThinking We are using the fact that there is an infinite string of (1-1) or (-1+1). This turns into 0+0+0+0.... This is the critical step, where we assume that 0+0+0+0+0+0..... = 0, allowing us to reach the paradox. Honestly, there are some situations in advanced math where that is not true, but it is what makes this contradiction cool.

AYUBALLENA edited

First of all, infinite is not a number
Second: Period numbers, like π
π is an irrational number, since their decimals are infinite, and as you know, adding infinite things leads to infinite, but π starts off with 3 which is not infinite, also that you would be adding lesser numbers each time.
Third: infinite + 1 > infinite, as said, infinite is not a number, is a word, so it’s like saying potato + 1 > potato
“potato” has a definition, and adding “1” just doesn’t make sense, the potato is still a plant, therefore still a potato
“infinite” has a definition too, and adding “1” doesn’t make sense either, infinite still has no end, therefore still infinite

First of all, infinite is not a number Second: Period numbers, like π π is an irrational number, since their decimals are infinite, and as you know, adding infinite things leads to infinite, but π starts off with 3 which is not infinite, also that you would be adding lesser numbers each time. Third: infinite + 1 > infinite, as said, infinite is not a number, is a word, so it’s like saying potato + 1 > potato “potato” has a definition, and adding “1” just doesn’t make sense, the potato is still a plant, therefore still a potato “infinite” has a definition too, and adding “1” doesn’t make sense either, infinite still has no end, therefore still infinite

JASKIRATSINGH

edited

@tixem75 said in #1:

Left hand side = 0
= 0+0+0...
or (1 - 1) + (1 - 1) + (1 - 1)....
or 1 + (-1 + 1) + (-1 + 1)....
or 1 + 0 + 0 + 0....
or 1
= right hand side
hence 0 = 1 proved

take spam as =1 (given)

spam + reported= chat banned
spam = chat banned

therefore... chat banned = super lose

chat banned - supper lose = 0

0=1 ( by lichess property)

Hence Proved

@tixem75 said in #1: > Left hand side = 0 > = 0+0+0... > or (1 - 1) + (1 - 1) + (1 - 1).... > or 1 + (-1 + 1) + (-1 + 1).... > or 1 + 0 + 0 + 0.... > or 1 > = right hand side > hence 0 = 1 proved take spam as =1 (given) spam + reported= chat banned spam = chat banned therefore... chat banned = super lose chat banned - supper lose = 0 0=1 ( by lichess property) Hence Proved

This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.