Math Confusion

Discussion in 'Odds & Ends' started by Talker, May 30, 2013.

  1. Talker

    Talker Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2007
    Messages:
    2,986
    1) X = .99999...
    2) 10X = 9.99999...

    Subtract 1) from 2)

    9X = 9 and X =1. So .9999.... = 1 and all is good.


    1) Q = 1 + 2 + 4 + 8.........


    2) Q = 1 + 2(1 + 2 + 4 + 8.........) Group terms


    3) Q = 1 + 2Q Substitute 1) in 2)


    Solve for Q:
    4) Q = -1 and then -1 = Q = 1 + 2 + 4 + 8.........


    How can -1 = 1 + 2 + 4 + 8......... ????
     
    #1
  2. r2473

    r2473 Legend

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2006
    Messages:
    7,033
    I've never really understood a person's Q score is calculated either.
     
    #2
  3. sureshs

    sureshs Bionic Poster

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2005
    Messages:
    35,108
    Because an infinite geometric series like Q does not converge unless the absolute value of the common ratio is less than 1. So Q does not exist in the mathematical sense, and its value is infinity.
     
    #3
  4. LeeD

    LeeD Bionic Poster

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2008
    Messages:
    36,455
    Location:
    East side of San Francisco Bay
    Because there is little value in math, translated to real life, unless you plan to be an accountant.
     
    #4
  5. Talker

    Talker Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2007
    Messages:
    2,986

    You ruined all the fun. :)

    Not rigorous way. If
    1) Q = infinity
    2) Q + 1 = infinity
    Subtract 1) from 2) then

    1 = 0

    Q (infinity) is not a specific number like 400 for example or like you say does not converge to a specific number.
     
    #5
  6. Talker

    Talker Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2007
    Messages:
    2,986

    As long as my bank account is positive I'm happy.
     
    #6
  7. Talker

    Talker Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2007
    Messages:
    2,986
    People with low Q scores can't figure out their Q score. :)
     
    #7
  8. krz

    krz Professional

    Joined:
    May 23, 2007
    Messages:
    889
    Location:
    Concrete Jungle Where Dreams are Made
    [​IMG]
     
    #8
  9. LeeD

    LeeD Bionic Poster

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2008
    Messages:
    36,455
    Location:
    East side of San Francisco Bay
    Figuring out your bank account is not advanced calculus, but rather simple addition and subtraction. That's 6 grade stuff, not university advanced math.
    Besides, the banks do it for you, and figure in their percentage while doing so....
     
    #9
  10. Claudius

    Claudius Professional

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2009
    Messages:
    1,030
    Most of use won't use calculus in our daily jobs, but then again do we really use anything we learned in grade school/college?
     
    #10
  11. Steady Eddy

    Steady Eddy Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2007
    Messages:
    2,545
    Location:
    Arizona
    Maybe you don't use math in the way you do it on a math test? But having an understanding of math seems to matter. I read of a study that showed that people who could understand ideas like compound interest retired with much more $$ than did people who were ignorant of them.
     
    #11
  12. r2473

    r2473 Legend

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2006
    Messages:
    7,033
    Accounting has nothing to do with math.
     
    #12
  13. The Meat

    The Meat Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2012
    Messages:
    1,998
    You pretty much only use Calculus when looking at graphs and want to figure out the amount of something under the curve or above the curve. After 3 years of undergrad research in Chemistry I can honestly say I've used Calculus a handful of times for my research papers. It's kind of a sad thing to admit......
     
    #13
  14. GregN

    GregN New User

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2005
    Messages:
    33
    Talker, there is some real confusion with what you have 'assumed' not with maths as such. I would assume some lecturer has given these to you as a teaser, and its worked
     
    #14
  15. Steady Eddy

    Steady Eddy Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2007
    Messages:
    2,545
    Location:
    Arizona
    What's wrong with the following?
    Let "L" be the largest real number.
    then surely 1) L >= 1
    Since no real number can be larger than L, L >= L^2
    Divide each side by L, and 2) 1 >= L
    Combining 1) and 2)...1>= L >= 1,
    so L must = 1

    The largest real number is 1.

    What's going on here?
     
    #15
  16. sureshs

    sureshs Bionic Poster

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2005
    Messages:
    35,108
    It has more to do with philosophy
     
    #16
  17. sureshs

    sureshs Bionic Poster

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2005
    Messages:
    35,108
    Eddy is back! Need to read his post and try to understand it.
     
    #17
  18. r2473

    r2473 Legend

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2006
    Messages:
    7,033
    Math and philosophy can be closely related.
     
    #18
  19. Steady Eddy

    Steady Eddy Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2007
    Messages:
    2,545
    Location:
    Arizona
    I think so. Plato's academy didn't want those ignorant of geometry. Descartes, Leibniz, and Bertrand Russell are famous for contributions to mathematics and philosophy.
     
    #19
  20. Baseline Winner

    Baseline Winner New User

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2012
    Messages:
    14
    thats like saying infinite/infinite=one which is not always true.
     
    #20
  21. Baseline Winner

    Baseline Winner New User

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2012
    Messages:
    14
    I mean infinity...I can't spell
     
    #21
  22. Steady Eddy

    Steady Eddy Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2007
    Messages:
    2,545
    Location:
    Arizona
    I think it is more like saying that 1 is the largest number, which is not true. It's clear the conclusion is wrong, but all the ideas leading up to that conclusion seem true. So, is logic unreliable?
     
    #22
  23. Baseline Winner

    Baseline Winner New User

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2012
    Messages:
    14
    What's wrong with this is the step where you have L>=L^2

    You cannot both say that L=L^2 and L^2/L=L simply because if L is the largest real number L^2 (which we should then treat as infinity^2)=L so therefore this step should read that L>=L
     
    #23
  24. Steady Eddy

    Steady Eddy Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2007
    Messages:
    2,545
    Location:
    Arizona
    First, I just want to be sure that there is no misunderstanding about ">=", which is "greater than or equal to", on this keyboard I cannot do the conventional symbol.

    If I postulate a "largest real number", then it must have the property of being greater than its own square. Mathematicians think such an assumption is nonsense. But in philosophy, this kind of assumption is made in the ontological argument for god. I'm surprised philosophers don't dismiss it as well.

    i.e. the ontological argument goes something like this. Imagine a most perfect being. Does this being exist? Yes, it must have the attribute of existence, otherwise we've not imagine the most perfect being. Hence, god exists.

    p.s. Seems the arguments flaw is the assumption that a largest real number exists. Because such a number would have to be bigger than it's own square.
     
    #24
  25. sureshs

    sureshs Bionic Poster

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2005
    Messages:
    35,108
    There is no largest real number, because if L is the largest, L + 0.00000000001 is larger.
     
    #25
  26. sureshs

    sureshs Bionic Poster

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2005
    Messages:
    35,108
    They were one and the same in ancient times
     
    #26
  27. Cindysphinx

    Cindysphinx G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2006
    Messages:
    15,070
    What's wrong?

    It's math, that's what's wrong.
     
    #27
  28. KineticChain

    KineticChain Professional

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2012
    Messages:
    1,109
    The technological world we thrive in today is thanks to the scientists and engineers who use math everyday
     
    #28
  29. sureshs

    sureshs Bionic Poster

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2005
    Messages:
    35,108
    LeeD doesn't care about technology. He likes to play sports outdoors and be One with Nature.
     
    #29
  30. Steady Eddy

    Steady Eddy Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2007
    Messages:
    2,545
    Location:
    Arizona
    Yes, it takes for granted that L exists, just like the other argument assumed that 1 + 2 + 4 + 8...sums to a finite number.

    Very true!
     
    #30
  31. sureshs

    sureshs Bionic Poster

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2005
    Messages:
    35,108
    Eddy, I just realized that there seems to be no direct way to generate the next prime number, given the previous one, except through various "sieve" schemes which actually just list possible candidates and eliminate the composite ones. In other words, given 7, there seems to be no direct way to find that 11 is the next prime number.

    Has it been proven to be impossible? Not easy to find the answer from Google. Such a simple problem and no known solution!
     
    #31
  32. Steady Eddy

    Steady Eddy Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2007
    Messages:
    2,545
    Location:
    Arizona
    This was discussed in "An Excursion Through Number Theory". We can't get a formula to generate primes because they're the numbers that haven't fit into any pattern yet. Something like that. I don't know if it has been proven. I'm at work now, but I'll look at that book when I get home. It's an inexpensive Dover book. I think you'd like it.
     
    #32
  33. sureshs

    sureshs Bionic Poster

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2005
    Messages:
    35,108
    These days I limit myself only to material which helps me teach my son. I will be free in a year or so once he is in college. Let me know if there is a proof that it cannot be done.
     
    #33
  34. Steady Eddy

    Steady Eddy Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2007
    Messages:
    2,545
    Location:
    Arizona
    There is a proof that it cannot be done. On page 38 it says, "...they produce values of Y divisible by p, contradicting the hypothesis. Hence, no such prime producing polynomial exists.
     
    #34
  35. Claudius

    Claudius Professional

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2009
    Messages:
    1,030
    Here's a mindblowing fact.

    There are infinitely many natural numbers, and infinitely many real numbers, right?

    Well it turns out that the infinity of the real numbers is larger than the infinity of the natural numbers! To be mathematically precise, what this means is that there is no function from N --> R that is bijective. In other words, no one-to-one correspondence.

    But get this. It just so happens that there as many rational numbers as natural numbers, and in fact, just as many integers as natural numbers!

    In mathematics, we call this the cardinality of a set. For finite sets, the cardinality is simply the number of elements but for infinite sets it gets more interesting, and what cantor showed is that |N| < |R|.

    It has long been conjectured that there is no set S, such that |N| < |S| < |R|. This was known as the continuum hypothesis. However, it won't ever be settled. Kurt Godel and Paul Cohen proved that the continuum hypothesis cannot be proven from the axioms of modern mathematics.
     
    #35
  36. sureshs

    sureshs Bionic Poster

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2005
    Messages:
    35,108
    And Cantor's diagonalization proof is ridiculously simple! I was quite surprised by how easy it is.

    Do you know about infinities higher than R? I think there is one for the number of curves in 2D space? Probably 2 more infinities higher than R?
     
    #36
  37. Claudius

    Claudius Professional

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2009
    Messages:
    1,030
    There are infinitely many infinities higher than R. Take any set S. The set of all subsets of S is known as the power set of S (denoted P(S)), and it will always be the case that |S| < |P(S)|. For finite sets, this is obvious, since if S has n elements P(S) will have 2^n elements, but this extends to infinite sets as well. If interested, here's the proof.

    Proof: It suffices to show that no function f: S --> P(S) can be surjective. Let A be the set of all elements x in S such that x is not in f(x). Then if x is in A, x is not in f(x), and so f(x) \= A. If x is not in A, then x is in f(x) \= A. Therefore, no element can get mapped to A, so f is not surjective.
     
    Last edited: Jun 4, 2013
    #37
  38. sureshs

    sureshs Bionic Poster

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2005
    Messages:
    35,108
    What about the number of points in a plane? Is that infinity the same as the infinity of R because (x,y) both come from R?

    What about the infinity of curves you can draw in a plane? Is it the same one as R?
     
    #38
  39. Claudius

    Claudius Professional

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2009
    Messages:
    1,030

    The set of points in the plane will have the same cardinality as R, same with the set of curves.
     
    #39
  40. sureshs

    sureshs Bionic Poster

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2005
    Messages:
    35,108
    But aren't curves like subsets of the points? Then their number should be that of the power set.
     
    #40
  41. Readers

    Readers Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2011
    Messages:
    675
    If your ... term is unlimited, Q = infinite and everything after that are completely meaning less.

    If not, then you can't go from 1 to 2.
     
    #41
  42. Readers

    Readers Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2011
    Messages:
    675
    Logic is fine, the way you define and think/treat infinite is not.

    You should not try to mix infinite and real number.
     
    #42
  43. Claudius

    Claudius Professional

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2009
    Messages:
    1,030
    You can think of a curve as a subset of the plane, but not all subsets of the plane is a curve. I admit, I can't quite prove the number of curves is |R|, but I'm rather certain of it. :)
     
    #43
  44. r2473

    r2473 Legend

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2006
    Messages:
    7,033
    Just as I can't prove that a large number of snakes on a plane = academy award, but I'm rather certain of it.
     
    #44

Share This Page