What is wrong with this? 1=-1?

For the discussion of math. Duh.

Moderators: gmalivuk, Moderators General, Prelates

VDOgamez
Posts: 122
Joined: Tue May 06, 2008 1:49 am UTC

What is wrong with this? 1=-1?

Postby VDOgamez » Fri Feb 20, 2009 3:10 pm UTC

Somehow, I accidentally showed that 1=-1. Here. -1=-1^1=-1^(2/2)=(-1^2)^(1/2)=1^(1/2)=1. What did I do wrong to get this? :?

User avatar
t0rajir0u
Posts: 1178
Joined: Wed Apr 16, 2008 12:52 am UTC
Location: Cambridge, MA
Contact:

Re: What is wrong with this? 1=-1?

Postby t0rajir0u » Fri Feb 20, 2009 3:13 pm UTC

[imath](a^b)^c = a^{bc}[/imath] isn't true in general when (edit:) [imath]b, c[/imath] aren't both integers (misread!). Any number has two square roots (with multiplicity - I know how you xkcd kids love to nitpick!), and what you did amounts to picking the wrong square root.
Last edited by t0rajir0u on Fri Feb 20, 2009 5:42 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

Token
Posts: 1481
Joined: Fri Dec 01, 2006 5:07 pm UTC
Location: London

Re: What is wrong with this? 1=-1?

Postby Token » Fri Feb 20, 2009 5:20 pm UTC

t0rajir0u wrote:[imath](a^b)^c = a^{bc}[/imath] isn't true in general when [imath]b[/imath] isn't an integer.

In this case, [imath]b[/imath] is an integer.
All posts are works in progress. If I posted something within the last hour, chances are I'm still editing it.

User avatar
jestingrabbit
Factoids are just Datas that haven't grown up yet
Posts: 5967
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 9:50 pm UTC
Location: Sydney

Re: What is wrong with this? 1=-1?

Postby jestingrabbit » Fri Feb 20, 2009 5:24 pm UTC

Token wrote:
t0rajir0u wrote:[imath](a^b)^c = a^{bc}[/imath] isn't true in general when [imath]b[/imath] isn't an integer.

In this case, [imath]b[/imath] is an integer.

NITPICKER!!!
ameretrifle wrote:Magic space feudalism is therefore a viable idea.

Token
Posts: 1481
Joined: Fri Dec 01, 2006 5:07 pm UTC
Location: London

Re: What is wrong with this? 1=-1?

Postby Token » Fri Feb 20, 2009 5:27 pm UTC

And loving it.
All posts are works in progress. If I posted something within the last hour, chances are I'm still editing it.

User avatar
headprogrammingczar
Posts: 3072
Joined: Mon Oct 22, 2007 5:28 pm UTC
Location: Beaming you up

Re: What is wrong with this? 1=-1?

Postby headprogrammingczar » Fri Feb 20, 2009 5:27 pm UTC

Token wrote:
t0rajir0u wrote:[imath](a^b)^c = a^{bc}[/imath] isn't true in general when [imath]b[/imath] isn't an integer.

In this case, [imath]b[/imath] is an integer.

But C isn't. The fun thing about [imath]a^{bc}[/imath] is that b and c are interchangeable. You have [imath](1^2)^\frac{1}{2}=(-1^2)^\frac{1}{2}[/imath], which would be incredibly obvious if you wrote your proof in proper form. You start with an equality and modify only one side until you get to what you wanted to prove.
<quintopia> You're not crazy. you're the goddamn headprogrammingspock!
<Weeks> You're the goddamn headprogrammingspock!
<Cheese> I love you

Token
Posts: 1481
Joined: Fri Dec 01, 2006 5:07 pm UTC
Location: London

Re: What is wrong with this? 1=-1?

Postby Token » Fri Feb 20, 2009 5:33 pm UTC

headprogrammingczar wrote:The fun thing about [imath]a^{bc}[/imath] is that b and c are interchangeable.

But not in [imath](a^b)^c[/imath] (well, not unambiguously, anyway). Clearly you don't fully understand the spirit of pedantry here.
All posts are works in progress. If I posted something within the last hour, chances are I'm still editing it.

User avatar
TheQntty
Posts: 111
Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 1:04 am UTC
Location: USA

Re: What is wrong with this? 1=-1?

Postby TheQntty » Fri Feb 20, 2009 11:00 pm UTC

(-1^2)^(1/2)


He's where you went wrong. [imath]\sqrt{-1^2} = i \not= -1[/imath]

The mistake you made is thinking that [imath](-k)^n = -k^n[/imath] which isn't true because of order of operations. If you fix that, it would still be wrong because (as others said) [imath]\sqrt{n^2} = |n|[/imath]

User avatar
a Person
Posts: 41
Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2009 4:13 am UTC
Location: Virgo Supercluster

Re: What is wrong with this? 1=-1?

Postby a Person » Sat Feb 21, 2009 11:37 pm UTC

How about this?

i^4=1
4th root of 1 is 1
Therefore, i = 1
Image

User avatar
Sir_Elderberry
Posts: 4206
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 6:50 pm UTC
Location: Sector ZZ9 Plural Z Alpha
Contact:

Re: What is wrong with this? 1=-1?

Postby Sir_Elderberry » Sun Feb 22, 2009 12:44 am UTC

a Person wrote:How about this?

i^4=1
4th root of 1 is 1
Therefore, i = 1


Fourth root of 1 has multiple solutions.
http://www.geekyhumanist.blogspot.com -- Science and the Concerned Voter
Belial wrote:You are the coolest guy that ever cooled.

I reiterate. Coolest. Guy.

Well. You heard him.

User avatar
Blatm
Posts: 638
Joined: Mon Jun 04, 2007 1:43 am UTC

Re: What is wrong with this? 1=-1?

Postby Blatm » Sun Feb 22, 2009 12:46 am UTC

x4 - 1= 0 has 4 solutions: 1, i, -1, and -i. Just because two numbers are solutions to the same equation doesn't mean they are equal (you wouldn't claim that 0 = 2pi just because their sines are equal). In this particular case, the problem is that over the reals, the square root is defined to be positive because it's easier to deal with functions that aren't multivalued. Over the complex numbers, roots are multivalued, and can be treated as the inverse function to xn - c = 0 (this is how they are defined, actually).

Edit: Ninja'd, again.

cspirou
Posts: 147
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 4:09 pm UTC

Re: What is wrong with this? 1=-1?

Postby cspirou » Sun Feb 22, 2009 2:12 am UTC

t0rajir0u wrote:[imath](a^b)^c = a^{bc}[/imath] isn't true in general when (edit:) [imath]b, c[/imath] aren't both integers (misread!). Any number has two square roots (with multiplicity - I know how you xkcd kids love to nitpick!), and what you did amounts to picking the wrong square root.



Yes it is. Show me something where it's not true.

VDOgamez wrote:Somehow, I accidentally showed that 1=-1. Here. -1=-1^1=-1^(2/2)=(-1^2)^(1/2)=1^(1/2)=1. What did I do wrong to get this? :?


It's the last step where you take the root of 1. There's two answers. 1 and -1. One of them is valid.

User avatar
antonfire
Posts: 1772
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2007 7:31 pm UTC

Re: What is wrong with this? 1=-1?

Postby antonfire » Sun Feb 22, 2009 2:38 am UTC

cspirou wrote:
t0rajir0u wrote:[imath](a^b)^c = a^{bc}[/imath] isn't true in general when (edit:) [imath]b, c[/imath] aren't both integers (misread!). Any number has two square roots (with multiplicity - I know how you xkcd kids love to nitpick!), and what you did amounts to picking the wrong square root.
Yes it is. Show me something where it's not true.

((-1)2)1/2 = 11/2 = 1
(-1)1/2 * 2 = (-1)1 = -1

Sure, you can claim that "11/2 can be either 1 or -1", but (-1)1 certainly can't. So even if you think of ab as a multi-valued function, it doesn't quite work out.
Jerry Bona wrote:The Axiom of Choice is obviously true; the Well Ordering Principle is obviously false; and who can tell about Zorn's Lemma?

User avatar
TheQntty
Posts: 111
Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 1:04 am UTC
Location: USA

Re: What is wrong with this? 1=-1?

Postby TheQntty » Sun Feb 22, 2009 3:22 am UTC

In most cases [imath]x^{1/2}[/imath] is taken to mean the positive square root of x.

For skeptics
Mathworld wrote:...this is called the principal square root and is written [imath]r=x^{1/2}[/imath] or [imath]r=\sqrt{x}.[/imath]

User avatar
quintopia
Posts: 2906
Joined: Fri Nov 17, 2006 2:53 am UTC
Location: atlanta, ga

Re: What is wrong with this? 1=-1?

Postby quintopia » Sun Feb 22, 2009 6:12 am UTC

t0rajr0u got this one, but later posters seem to have been confused by the fact that you didn't put parentheses around your -1, in which case, the error is more obvious.

User avatar
Agent Foxtrot
Posts: 39
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2008 12:59 pm UTC
Location: ███████████

Re: What is wrong with this? 1=-1?

Postby Agent Foxtrot » Fri Feb 27, 2009 5:17 pm UTC

Blatm wrote:...you wouldn't claim that 0 = 2pi just because their sines are equal...

[imath]\sin0=\sin2\pi[/imath]
[imath]\sin^{-1}(\sin0)=\sin^{-1}(\sin2\pi)[/imath]
[imath]0=2\pi[/imath]

User avatar
Mathmagic
It's not as cool as that Criss Angel stuff.
Posts: 2926
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 12:48 am UTC
Location: In ur fora posting in teh threads

Re: What is wrong with this? 1=-1?

Postby Mathmagic » Fri Feb 27, 2009 7:11 pm UTC

I guess it's a good thing that sine and cosine aren't injective.
Axman: That, and have you played DX 10 games? It's like having your corneas swabbed with clits made out of morphine.
Pathway: cocks cocks cocks

User avatar
Macbi
Posts: 941
Joined: Mon Apr 09, 2007 8:32 am UTC
Location: UKvia

Re: What is wrong with this? 1=-1?

Postby Macbi » Fri Feb 27, 2009 7:14 pm UTC

There seem to be about three discusions in various threads about the merits (and lack thereof) of multi-valued functions. Possibly because almost every false proof uses them.
    Indigo is a lie.
    Which idiot decided that websites can't go within 4cm of the edge of the screen?
    There should be a null word, for the question "Is anybody there?" and to see if microphones are on.

cspirou
Posts: 147
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 4:09 pm UTC

Re: What is wrong with this? 1=-1?

Postby cspirou » Sat Feb 28, 2009 2:10 am UTC

antonfire wrote:
cspirou wrote:
t0rajir0u wrote:[imath](a^b)^c = a^{bc}[/imath] isn't true in general when (edit:) [imath]b, c[/imath] aren't both integers (misread!). Any number has two square roots (with multiplicity - I know how you xkcd kids love to nitpick!), and what you did amounts to picking the wrong square root.
Yes it is. Show me something where it's not true.

((-1)2)1/2 = 11/2 = 1
(-1)1/2 * 2 = (-1)1 = -1

Sure, you can claim that "11/2 can be either 1 or -1", but (-1)1 certainly can't. So even if you think of ab as a multi-valued function, it doesn't quite work out.


But you are ignoring a possible answer. Do you only assume it to be valid when all values should work out? As long as I see at least one case where it's true I still consider it to be true in general. Or maybe we should only consider the absolute value of these and that will satisfy things.

User avatar
antonfire
Posts: 1772
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2007 7:31 pm UTC

Re: What is wrong with this? 1=-1?

Postby antonfire » Sat Feb 28, 2009 2:30 am UTC

So, you'd discard the transitivity of equality, would you? Have fun with that.
Jerry Bona wrote:The Axiom of Choice is obviously true; the Well Ordering Principle is obviously false; and who can tell about Zorn's Lemma?

User avatar
the tree
Posts: 801
Joined: Mon Apr 02, 2007 6:23 pm UTC
Location: Behind you

Re: What is wrong with this? 1=-1?

Postby the tree » Sun Mar 01, 2009 10:57 pm UTC

antonfire wrote:So, you'd discard the transitivity of equality, would you? Have fun with that.
After about a seconds thought, I've decided that that'd not be fun.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26767
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: What is wrong with this? 1=-1?

Postby gmalivuk » Mon Mar 02, 2009 1:51 am UTC

cspirou wrote:As long as I see at least one case where it's true I still consider it to be true in general.

Then you're completely wrong about the meaning of "in general"...
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

cameronv
Posts: 33
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 1:08 am UTC
Location: Wisconsin USA

Re: What is wrong with this? 1=-1?

Postby cameronv » Wed Mar 04, 2009 3:21 am UTC

Nothing is wrong with it by Inverse mathematics, infinity sequence has the differential of Absolute 1 as 1+ , -1, +1, representing the absolute proprtion of infinity. the three differentials represent two exverse+ dimensions and 1 inverse- dimension ==I absolute which has no plus or minus signs appendaged to it , but is 010 absolute.

Many equations in linear math are symmetrical/correct but not proprtionate/right. NEWTONS laws were Absolute ! proprtional . Likewise +1---------------(-1)--------------+1= Absolute 0- 1- 0 Einsteins is not , neither according to his theory is C a absolute Constant , it is E constant(c2), the vector 19 speed reference of the space medium(only a cone 19 degrees of inverse mathematics can handle such a speed . Mathematically I have almost proved that there are absolute minumum K constants for mass and Energy, and Maximum K constants for Mass and energy and both these are absolute

If more equations are proportional and more we realize the differential of 1, the more we will understand inverse mathematics and ultimately incorporate it into main mathematics. Inverse simply means curved conal off linear, and our space is all inverse(curved inwards), Infinity sequence is vital to inverse mathematics, and if you behave this non mathematician that developed inverse mathematics for medical analysis will tell more, may be an equation to calculate the square of mass which Einstein did not realize existed," it is the maximun compaction of mass by Gravity , and Maximum speed constant is the maximum compaction of space time and distance"


Brilliant 1=-1, linear is prop0rtional equal to the curved (by vector19 only)


"GOD DEALS HIS DICE AT VECTOR INVERSE(Curve)19"

auteur52
Posts: 165
Joined: Sun Mar 23, 2008 11:08 pm UTC

Re: What is wrong with this? 1=-1?

Postby auteur52 » Wed Mar 04, 2009 3:25 am UTC

I kind of missed this guy.

cameronv
Posts: 33
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 1:08 am UTC
Location: Wisconsin USA

Re: What is wrong with this? 1=-1?

Postby cameronv » Wed Mar 04, 2009 4:23 am UTC

Actually this Brilliant Fellow has just helped prove the fallacy of Einsteins theorem by his mathematics and by inverse mathematics, might as well say it , cant just wound your king Einstein. Einstein was using an inverse constant[curved] with a value of-1 and C2 thus is a +1 value (derived value of constant) rather than 0 1 0 Absolute . Actually the correct equation for mass and energy is E=M=1absolute , where M is the maximum squared of m, I predict that when mass inverses in the Black holes the speeds of energy would be much much more that of light.


REMEMBER when Absolute 1 is represented by an Absolute Constant it has zero on each side[infinity sequence every thing must turn to absolute zero before it approaches Absolute 1], I hope you all are not using -+ signs with Absolute 1. Going back to this brilliant fellow, unsquared mass density(compaction by gravity) m (+1) =C(-1), since C is inverse to E constant, but Einstein could not square mass, so he squared C and derived himself a Absolute Constant with a value of +1, the rest is history fellows, 100 years of mathematics progress!.

Curved constants are -value 1, E constant(1 absolute) neither + nor neg- value , will be parallel to every thing. So fellows I dare say the greatest tensor is +1= -1 or derived constant, but it needs another +1 as per above infinity sequence, to be Absolute 1. "even though it is mathematically equal, only in sequence , not by equation" There is your answer fellow. +1 is equal to -1 in a sequence such as infinity sequence or such.

User avatar
Sir_Elderberry
Posts: 4206
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 6:50 pm UTC
Location: Sector ZZ9 Plural Z Alpha
Contact:

Re: What is wrong with this? 1=-1?

Postby Sir_Elderberry » Wed Mar 04, 2009 4:39 am UTC

Well, not by equation, naturally, no, but I'm not sure I necessarily see the sequence.
http://www.geekyhumanist.blogspot.com -- Science and the Concerned Voter
Belial wrote:You are the coolest guy that ever cooled.

I reiterate. Coolest. Guy.

Well. You heard him.

User avatar
Marbas
Posts: 1169
Joined: Mon Jun 04, 2007 4:01 am UTC
Location: Down down down at the bottom of the sea
Contact:

Re: What is wrong with this? 1=-1?

Postby Marbas » Wed Mar 04, 2009 5:04 am UTC

auteur52 wrote:I kind of missed this guy.



What is it? Is it human?
Jahoclave wrote:Do you have any idea how much more fun the holocaust is with "Git er Done" as the catch phrase?

User avatar
Blatm
Posts: 638
Joined: Mon Jun 04, 2007 1:43 am UTC

Re: What is wrong with this? 1=-1?

Postby Blatm » Wed Mar 04, 2009 5:56 am UTC

He has 26 posts, but I can only find 2 of them. I really want to hear more of what he has to say.

User avatar
SlyReaper
inflatable
Posts: 8015
Joined: Mon Dec 31, 2007 11:09 pm UTC
Location: Bristol, Old Blighty

Re: What is wrong with this? 1=-1?

Postby SlyReaper » Wed Mar 04, 2009 10:50 am UTC

Is cameronv aiming for a Time Cube award?
Image
What would Baron Harkonnen do?

cameronv
Posts: 33
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 1:08 am UTC
Location: Wisconsin USA

Re: What is wrong with this? 1=-1?

Postby cameronv » Wed Mar 04, 2009 1:59 pm UTC

Some one asked! IF the MODERATOR permits I can post the equation for determination of K max, and K min propertionate constant for all mathematical constants, in inverse mathematics which really should be integrated with your mathematics Here is the sequence for absolute E , where T time , Speed and Distances are compacted into 1, why not! most of you can understand if you really love mathematics and slow down and think independant.Integrated and inverse mathematics are 1. This is at vector 19 below


<><><><><><><> same as 1.0.1.0.1.0.1.0.1.0. same as +1-1+1. 0.+1-1+1.0 same as ---Absolute linear

"No Mathematics is not elite or educated , it is for ALLthose that think slowly and carefully,and yes we could some day compact energy, and some day discover the mathematic sequence of nuclear energy so it is detctable more efficienctly.

GOOD bye on this Post!

User avatar
william
Not a Raptor. Honest.
Posts: 2418
Joined: Sat Oct 14, 2006 5:02 pm UTC
Location: Chapel Hill, NC
Contact:

Re: What is wrong with this? 1=-1?

Postby william » Fri Mar 06, 2009 1:42 pm UTC

SlyReaper wrote:Is cameronv aiming for a Time Cube award?

We need a new Gene Ray, since the old one has gone into "Racial War" mode.
SecondTalon wrote:A pile of shit can call itself a delicious pie, but that doesn't make it true.

User avatar
the tree
Posts: 801
Joined: Mon Apr 02, 2007 6:23 pm UTC
Location: Behind you

Re: What is wrong with this? 1=-1?

Postby the tree » Fri Mar 06, 2009 3:03 pm UTC

No replacement would be quite the same.

Rilian
Posts: 496
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2007 1:33 pm UTC

Re: What is wrong with this? 1=-1?

Postby Rilian » Sun Mar 08, 2009 8:25 am UTC

Someone showed me something like this using i, and a complicated string of equalities and I pointed out that it's just a more complicated form of saying 1=sqrt(1)=-1, which anyone past 8th grade can tell is stupid and wrong.
And I'm -2.


Return to “Mathematics”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests