The Student Room Group

Scroll to see replies

Reply 20
ZJuwelH
<corrected error>

I refuse to accept it, there's a flaw somewhere, that ain't supposed to work...

Well if it is being taught by a 2:1 Cambridge graduate with over 20 years of teaching experience behind him, then I can't see any flaws in that can you?

I understand the hesitation, you think it might be similar to the trick that develops the 1 = 2 argument thingy, but rest assured, there is no problem. Do it yourself.
Reply 21
ZJuwelH
<corrected error>

I refuse to accept it, there's a flaw somewhere, that ain't supposed to work...

Also that way is a standard way of turing recurring decimals etc into a proper fraction. So it is a valid way of working things out.
Reply 22
ZJuwelH
<corrected error>

I refuse to accept it, there's a flaw somewhere, that ain't supposed to work...


there is a paradox. it is impossible to imagine that at any point this chain of digits, which by law is completely made up of nines to the point of infinity, is equal to anything else. but the algebra proves it.
Reply 23
What about this one:

If we construct a bulb such that it is on for 30 seconds, off fro 15, on for 7.5, off for 3.75 etc... after 1 minute is it off or on?
Reply 24
theone
What about this one:

If we construct a bulb such that it is on for 30 seconds, off fro 15, on for 7.5, off for 3.75 etc... after 1 minute is it off or on?


Off, it would've malfunctioned after all those switches...
Reply 25
mik1a
there is a paradox. it is impossible to imagine that at any point this chain of digits, which by law is completely made up of nines to the point of infinity, is equal to anything else. but the algebra proves it.


I don't want to believe it. There must be something up with it. Never mind, soon someone will find a bigger contradiction in number theory and all mathematics will fall apart...
Reply 26
ZJuwelH
Off, it would've malfunctioned after all those switches...


hehe, assume it doesn't :smile:
Reply 27
theone
What about this one:

If we construct a bulb such that it is on for 30 seconds, off fro 15, on for 7.5, off for 3.75 etc... after 1 minute is it off or on?

Theoretically it would never reach 1 minute exactly, always some time before it, but never reaching 0.99999999999.......... minute as well.

Physically, the light bulb would be limited by the speed of the electrons. ie at really short speeds, it depends on whether there is enough time for a complete circuit to happen
Reply 28
ZJuwelH
I don't want to believe it. There must be something up with it. Never mind, soon someone will find a bigger contradiction in number theory and all mathematics will fall apart...

But mathematics are based on axioms of thinking that can not be refuted. ie 1 + 1 = 2
Reply 29
theone
hehe, assume it doesn't :smile:


Then the person turning it on and off would get a tired arm...
Reply 30
2776
But mathematics are based on axioms of thinking that can not be refuted. ie 1 + 1 = 2


Yeah I know. Imagine if one of the axioms fell apart...

Do you think someone who destroyed maths would be hailed as a genius or public enemy number one? Well maybe not hailed but respected or acknowledged or something...

Probably never happen, maths is the only infallible thing in the world...
Reply 31
ZJuwelH
Yeah I know. Imagine if one of the axioms fell apart...

Do you think someone who destroyed maths would be hailed as a genius or public enemy number one? Well maybe not hailed but respected or acknowledged or something...

Probably never happen, maths is the only infallible thing in the world...

Apparently someone proved that 1+ 1 = 2.

And only a handful of people appreciate the arguments of it. I would start worrying if it didn't work.
theone
What about this one:

If we construct a bulb such that it is on for 30 seconds, off fro 15, on for 7.5, off for 3.75 etc... after 1 minute is it off or on?


This is essentially one of the paradoxes of infinity right? It is similar to this problem - You drop a ball from 1 metre say and after it has travelled 1/2 metre you see it has half to go. After it has travelled half the remaining distance ie another 1/4, it has 1/4 to go. This carries on infinitely with the ball always having half the remaining distance to travel therefore never hits the floor. This is mathematically the limit of the summation of 2^-n from 1 as n tends to infinity. The summation tends to the limit of 1.
2776
Apparently someone proved that 1+ 1 = 2.

And only a handful of people appreciate the arguments of it. I would start worrying if it didn't work.


I think Russel did in the Principia. There is a proof that 2x2=4 in the tractatus by wittgenstein that uses some def function but it is hard.
Reply 34
mik1a
I just realised something.

What is 4.4444... to 2 decimal places?

when rounding you just look to the next one. i.e. the 3rd decimal place in your question. there is no paradox.
2776
Apparently someone proved that 1+ 1 = 2.

And only a handful of people appreciate the arguments of it. I would start worrying if it didn't work.


What would you do? :confused:
Reply 36
bono
What would you do? :confused:

what's more worrying is if 1 =/= 1.
elpaw
what's more worrying is if 1 =/= 1.


How can you prove 1 + 1 = 2?

It just is! :biggrin:
elpaw
what's more worrying is if 1 =/= 1.


Is it true that there is a "proof" that states 1 = 2? :confused:
Reply 39
bono
Is it true that there is a "proof" that states 1 = 2? :confused:

there is a "proof" but not a proof.

Latest

Trending

Trending