Cool Math Trick

Subtracting infinity from infinity is not a Good Idea(TM). In reality, it's better to say that the sum you show doesn't converge.

Also, two times infinity is also not a Good Idea(TM).

[ Reply to This | # ]

I won't argue with that =)

[ Reply to This | # ]

2S - S is not 1, it is 2^(n+1) - 1

[ Reply to This | # ]

S = (1 + 2 + 4 + ... ) = infinity
2S = 2 * infinity = infinity
2S + 1 = 2 * infinity + 1 = infinity

Since S is infinity and 2S + 1 is infinity, the equality becomes infinity = infinity, hardly surprising.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Subtracting s from 2s does not give you s...

It would give you 2s - s

You would need to divide s from both sides to solve for s as 2s is actually:

2 X S

[ Reply to This | # ]

2s = s+s say s = 4 or whatever
2(4) = 4+4
8 = 8

so
2s - s = s + s - s
8 - 4 = 8 - 4
4=4

2s / s = 2
2*4 / 4 = 2 dont you slash of the common number like that?

[ Reply to This | # ]

However if you do divide both sides guess what?

2S = S - 1
2S / S = (S - 1) / S
2 = -1
?? right?

[ Reply to This | # ]

nope it would be 2= -1/s

[ Reply to This | # ]

nope it should be
1 = -1/S
S=-1

Thus
2S = S - 1
-2 = -2

[ Reply to This | # ]

Pshaw. I could _tell_ them S's were movin funny.
Still: Gives a feelin in me brains like Im Bullwinkle J. Moose a-cryin out, "Im SO confused!"
So the trick is a deepdown error, a hard catchin rough- followin, brain hurtin neat cute major miscalculation, I guess?
Huh. Aint right lying bout the value of a good ol boy like our pal S.
(Now placeholder [], why he's Another Story. Wouldn't give that lil weasel the Time o Day. Reckon you should mathtrick _him_ next. An after, dont ferget X and all the mean things _he_ done to pore lil number one.)
Just a thawt. Bye now!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Common mathematical error...

2S-S = 2S-1S

therefore 2-1 = 1

thus 2S-1S= 1S=S.

the "1" is an implied coefficient.

The trick seems to work, but logically you can't have two infinities.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Um, 2S = S + S: it's NOT s to the power of 2 (s*s)

[ Reply to This | # ]

S = Sum of 2 ^ n from 0 to n.

lim S
n -> inf
= 1 + 2 + 4 + 8 + 16 + 32 + ... + 2 ^ (n - 1) + 2 ^ n

2 * lim S + 1 = 1 + 2 + 4 + 8 + 16 + ... + 2 ^ n + 2 ^ (n + 1)
2 * lim S + 1 = lim S + lim 2 ^ (n + 1)
2 * lim S +1 = lim S + inf
lim S + 1 = inf
inf + 1 = inf
inf = inf
:)

[ Reply to This | # ]

You can make this entirely kosher by working with 2-adic numbers: define a topology on the rationals different from the usual one, by defining the absolute value of (a/b)*2^n to be 2^-n (for a and b odd). Then this series converges to -1 in this topology.

[ Reply to This | # ]

That reminds me a little bit of taking the limit of sin(x)/x, as x goes to infinity. The answer is six-- if you allow the x's to cancel. It all depends which rules you use. =)

---
Windell H. Oskay
drwho(at)evilmadscientist.com
http://www.evilmadscientist.com/

[ Reply to This | # ]

Heh. But p-adic numbers are extremely useful in number theory; there's a whole theory of calculus on them (which is in fact better-behaved than ordinary calculus: for example a series converges whenever the terms go to zero). And this trick works because *how* convergence happens doesn't matter for it; all one needs is to know that it converges in some sense.

[ Reply to This | # ]

It is correct as if we take s as common in 2s-s eq. then we get s=-1

[ Reply to This | # ]

Did the fellas at Northern Rock know about this? They shudda.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Weird things happen when you play with an infinit sequence of numbers, substracting infinity from infinity gives you a nondetermination, as you noted the sequence with S you lost this little detail. The sequence does converge - limit when n tends to infinity from 2^n = infinity, but you could calculate the sequence knowing n using the geometric progression a1*((q^n) - 1)/(q-1) where a1 means the first term and q represents the ratio in our case a1=1, q=2 so it gives - (2^n)-1. And you could also prove your -1 answer false with induction but i grow tired and this bores me, bye.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Ok, my turn:

There exists a bijection from the natural numbers to the elements of your sum (namely, shockingly, 2^n), so the two sets have the same cardinality (aleph null). Similarly, there is a bijection from the naturals N to f(n), where f(n) = the sum of 2^x for x = 0..n.

That's just a fancy way of saying that your sum S has a cardinality of aleph null.

Now to go through your steps:

2S = aleph null
2S + 1 = aleph null

(and yes, being countably infinite, S = 2S = 2S + 1 = 2S + 5999999999999999999999999)

and 2S = S - 1, of course.

But now you run into problems when you subtract S from both sides. Basically since 2S and S are both countably infinite, 2S - S is undefined.

So that last step is just nonsense. It makes just as much sense to say "subtract a banana from each side, and thus dogs = cats."

[ Reply to This | # ]

As I like to say, you can't have 2 infinities...

Caused a lot of fights with my brother over that :|

[ Reply to This | # ]

This is very like a trick my cousin showed me years ago when we were kids. What he "proved" was not quite as radical: that .9999... = 1

n = .9999...
10n = 9.9999...
10n - n = 9
9n = 9
n = 1

[ Reply to This | # ]

The difference is that the statement "0.99999... = 1" is actually true.

We even have a separate article about that.

---
Windell H. Oskay
drwho(at)evilmadscientist.com
http://www.evilmadscientist.com/

[ Reply to This | # ]

It's not really like that. The proof you mentioned is valid. This one isn't.

[ Reply to This | # ]

>It's not really like that. The proof you mentioned is valid. This one isn't.

Not sure which proof you're referring to as being valid or which one as being invalid....

---
Windell H. Oskay
drwho(at)evilmadscientist.com
http://www.evilmadscientist.com/

[ Reply to This | # ]

This one is REALLLY old and so intersting indeed. I've known it a looooong time ago. But it doesn't seem true, 'cause you work with infinit stuff and the result's not acceptable.

[ Reply to This | # ]

>This one is REALLLY old

Um... yeah. It says *right up top* what book this is from, and that book was published in 1983.

---
Windell H. Oskay
drwho(at)evilmadscientist.com
http://www.evilmadscientist.com/

[ Reply to This | # ]

Actually, that one isn't a trick. It's fact. 0.999.... does equal 1. The trick is in the visualization only, since most people don't view 0.999... as infiniti. I had a math prof who explained it another way that makes more sense:

1/3 = 0.333...
3(1/3) = 3/3 = 1

therefore by substitution
3(0.333...) = 1
or
0.999.... = 1

(of course, if we wrote 0.999... as 0.999999999999999999999999 for ever, it starts to make sense visually).

[ Reply to This | # ]

Then, add one to both sides:
2S + 1 = 1 + (2 + 4 + 8 + 16 + 32 + . . .)

You didn't add 1+ infinity, you added 1 + (infinity - 1)
Move the parenthesis back over and add the one and you get 2S + 1 = infinity + 1

[ Reply to This | # ]

Reply to:

2S + 1 = 1 + (2 + 4 + 8 + 16 + 32 + . . .)
= 1 + 2 + 4 + 8 + 16 + 32 + . . . = S.

Thus, 2S + 1 = S.

Reply:

1 + (2 + 4 + 8 + 16 + 32 + . . .) is not equal to
1 + 2 + 4 + 8 + 16 + 32 + . . .

because you are adding it and since 1 + 2 + 4 + 8 + 16 + 32 + . . . is equal to S, then of course 1 + S is not equal to S...

and if distributed, it will be:
3 + 5 + 9 + 17 + 33 + . . .

Thank you...
- cezus

[ Reply to This | # ]

its just ABS.. its not a distributed property

[ Reply to This | # ]

It is not advisable to equate the sum to infinity and then add 1 to it and your"S" +1 will also beequtal to in finity.

what i mean is ,you showed-
2S+1=1+(2+4+6+8........)

then can also be written as,
2S+1=S
and 1+(2+4+6+8......)=S

and as a part of Euclid's Postulates,positive units add up to form only positive units which is universally accepted

[ Reply to This | # ]

Well, yeah, I think it doesn't work. You can't work with infinit as easily as that, UNfortunately. Though, I always like that kind of methods to prove something apparently true, but which actually is false(often).

[ Reply to This | # ]

WRONG.
S=Infinity
2S=2xInfinity=Infinity
2S+1=2xInfinity+1=Infinity+1=Infinity
Therefore, Infinity=Infinity.(and not -1)
Get it?

[ Reply to This | # ]

2S-S = S and S-1-S = -1

thats how it works.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Here's one fer yer bad brains:
if e^(i*theta) = cos(theta) + i*sin(theta) where i = sqrt(-1)
then if theta = pi
then e^(i*pi) = cos(pi) + i*sin(pi)
or e^(i*pi) = (-1)+ i *(0)
or e^(i*pi) + 1 = 0 <-all five fundmental numbers!!!
Does this mean...
pi = ln(-1)/i ??? I don't know, I just shake head...

[ Reply to This | # ]

I was taught about orders of infinity in 7th grade, by a nun who did not understand what she was teaching. I did. The argument over the grading of that test was the beginning of the end of my Catholicism. (Then in public school I heard about Galileo.)

There are _orders_ of infinity. (I'm not sure how many but you can look it up.) The number of positive integers is infinity. The number of odd integers is infinity. The total number of primes is infinity. All the fractions between zero and one is an infinity. All the numbers between zero and one that _cannot_ be represented as a fraction are also an infinite set.

You can show that the infinity of positive integers is _equal_ to the infinity of _even_ positive integers by setting up a "one-to-one correspondence":
1:2, 2:4, 3:6....

The infinity of all numbers from zero to infinity is greater (a higher order) than the infinity of all _integers_ from zero to infinity. I don't remember how you prove this, but I remember that the proof was elegant.

[ Reply to This | # ]

The given infinite series doesn't converge to a finite sum (i.e. divergent series). Algebraic functions doesn't apply on these kind of infinite series on general basis (there are few exception though).

[ Reply to This | # ]

"Thus, 2S + 1 = S.
To solve for S..."

Why did you solve for S if you just told us that S = 2S +1?
And if S = 2S + 1 then how can S also equal -1? No need to "solve for S"!

[ Reply to This | # ]

1) If ( S=inf ) ===>mistake because ( inf - inf ) Impossible

2) If ( S = limited set then ==

==> ex) we have

S = [1+2+4+8]

2S = 2+4+8+16

2S+1= (1+2+4+8)+16

2S+1= S +16

2S+1=S+2(Last Number on S) In general,

2S-S=2(L N)-1

S=2(L N)-1

1+2+4+8=15=S

2(L N)-1=16-1=15=S

then S = 2(L N) - 1 ===>> S # -1

it's bigggggg mistake

[ Reply to This | # ]

Looks like you didn't understand the statement of the problem!

---
Windell H. Oskay
drwho(at)evilmadscientist.com
http://www.evilmadscientist.com/

[ Reply to This | # ]