78

According to Wikipedia False proof

For example the reason validity fails may be a division by zero that is hidden by algebraic notation. There is a striking quality of the mathematical fallacy: as typically presented, it leads not only to an absurd result, but does so in a crafty or clever way.

The Wikipedia page gives examples of proofs along the lines $2=1$ and the primary source appears the book Maxwell, E. A. (1959), Fallacies in mathematics.

What are some examples of interesting false proofs?

joro
  • 24,174
  • If someone asks for an explanation of an answer should it be rot13? – joro Apr 21 '12 at 14:42
  • 3
    Is this a duplicate? – Bruce Westbury Apr 21 '12 at 17:19
  • 3
    the answers to this will turn out to replicate many of the responses to Gowers' famous question on "false beliefs", so I am not so sure if this question should remain open. – Suvrit Apr 22 '12 at 05:46
  • 31
    A false proof is not the same as a false belief. One can read a false proof, know for certain that the conclusion is false (so there is no false belief), and still have trouble pinpointing the error. – Steven Landsburg Apr 22 '12 at 15:36
  • 1
    Indeed, a false proof is not the same as a false belief, and at no point did I imply that! But I mentioned Gowers' question, because the top answer's "false proof" (Cayley-Hamilton) also occurred there as one of the answers. (Believing a "false proof" to be true, is a "false belief", and because of that, there is a strong chance of intersection between the two questions) :-) – Suvrit Apr 22 '12 at 22:27
  • 2
    I'm surprised no one has mentioned Stallings's false proof of the Poincare Conjecture, in his paper "How Not to Prove the Poincare Conjecture". – Steve D Apr 30 '12 at 22:13
  • 5
    There are no false proofs, by definition. – Fernando Muro Mar 19 '13 at 17:32
  • Related: https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/348198 – Watson Jul 23 '18 at 18:12
  • 2
    @Fernando Muro but then there is no "false X" for the same reason – Pietro Majer Mar 24 '21 at 20:02
  • There are no false proofs, by well-ordering. Assume there is a false proof of ststement $S$. By well-ordering, there is a shortest false proof $P$ of $S$. Remove one symbol from $P$, thus generating a shorter false proof of $S$. This contradicts the minimality of $P$, and we are done. – Gerry Myerson Mar 28 '21 at 06:30
  • @GerryMyerson Interesting proof. Can you improve it by using its negation or self referential? – joro Mar 29 '21 at 11:21
  • In fact the empty proof is a false proof of any statement. It is also a true proof of any statement (with details left to the reader) – Pietro Majer Sep 30 '21 at 10:22
  • 1
    @Pietro, you have reminded me of the claim that all of computer programming reduces to debugging a blank page. – Gerry Myerson Nov 02 '21 at 23:37
  • @GerryMyerson Who debugs the debuggers? – joro Nov 03 '21 at 07:49
  • Quis debuggeret ipsos debuggeres? – Gerry Myerson Nov 03 '21 at 10:24

49 Answers49

118

My favorite example is the following proof of the Cayley-Hamilton theorem, which caused me some disconcertion when I was a student. Let $A$ be a square matrix, and call $p(t) = \det(tI - A)$ its characteristic polynomial. Then $p(A) = \det(AI-A) = 0$.

Angelo
  • 26,786
95

$$e^i = (e^i)^{(2\pi/2\pi)} = (e^{2\pi i})^{1/2\pi} = 1^{1/2\pi} = 1.$$

I first saw this one many years ago, written on the wall of a bathroom stall in the Princeton University math department.

Timothy Chow
  • 78,129
  • 45
    Math departments have the best bathroom graffiti. – Noam D. Elkies Jan 15 '13 at 04:51
  • 1
    Oh, this is really good. – Newb Nov 27 '13 at 16:20
  • 31
    This is not conceptually different from $-1=(-1)^{2/2}=((-1)^2)^{1/2}=1^{1/2}=1$ – Qfwfq Apr 05 '19 at 18:51
  • 4
    @Qfwfq, I'm embarrassed to learn, after having done a math degree, that $$(a^{b})^{c}$$ doesn't always equal $$a^{bc}$$ I then googled and watched famous youtube videos that introduce the equation (for high school kids), and none of them mentioned that either a should be non-negative or b, c must be integers. I'm shocked that this hasn't caused havoc for my math/programming life. I need to go back and prove some of my basics. – Elliott Sep 02 '21 at 12:45
  • 8
    @Elliott I would rather phrase it this way: $x^y$ is (or can be, if $y$ is not an integer) multi-valued. So $(a^b)^c$ represents a set of possible values, as does $a^{bc}$. These sets will overlap but they may not be equal, unless we are careful to specify (or adopt a convention) which of the multiple values we're selecting. The simplest example is that $1$ has two square roots, and by convention we usually interpret $1^{1/2}$ to be the positive square root, but when we apply the "law" $(a^b)^c = a^{bc}$, we must carefully select the correct value out of the multiple possible values. – Timothy Chow Sep 02 '21 at 13:09
  • @Elliott: I think it's more about domains of functions than about powers. Starting from $f:\mathbb{R}\to [0,\infty)$, $x\mapsto x^2$, restrict to $f_{+}:=f|{[0,\infty)}$ and $f{-}:=f|{(-\infty,0]}$. Let the inverses be $g{+}:=(f_{+})^{-1}$ and $g_{-}:=(f_{-})^{-1}$. Now $-1\in (-\infty,0]=\mathrm{dom}(f_{-})$ and $-1=g_{-}(f_{-}(-1))$. So far nothing strange. Then the false proof of my comment is explained by: $-1=g_{-}(f_{-}(-1))=g_{-}(1)\neq g_{+}(1)=1$. That is, the $(\ldots)^{1/2}$ in the notation is actually $g_{-}$ but $g_{+}$ is applied instead in the last passage. – Qfwfq Sep 02 '21 at 23:40
  • (p.s. of course also Timothy Chow's explanation is perfectly right, and equivalent) – Qfwfq Sep 02 '21 at 23:53
  • @TimothyChow: I'd like to reformulate of your argument in terms of finite coverings of the punctured plane (or sheaf theoretic). Would be a nice example for some undergrad courses! :) – Andrea Marino Dec 01 '23 at 10:52
87

I like this one, invented by T.Clausen in 1827: since $e^{2\pi i n}=1$ for all integers $n$, we have $e^{2\pi i n+1}=e$, which implies $e^{(2\pi i n+1)^2}=(e^{2\pi i n+1})^{2\pi i n+1}=e^{2\pi i n+1}=e$. Now expanding the square at the exponent gives $$e^{1-4\pi^2n^2+4\pi n i}=e$$ and after simplifying $$e^{-4\pi^2n^2}=1$$ for all $n$.

67

In the definition of an equivalence relation $\sim$, the reflexivity of $\sim$ is redundant: Indeed, for any $x$, by the symmetric property we have $x \sim y$ implies $y \sim x$. By transitivity we have $x \sim y$ and $y \sim x$ imply $x \sim x$. Therefore, using only symmetry and transitivity, we obtain reflexivity.

  • 6
    But this proves the result if there is at least one equivalence? – David Corwin Mar 20 '13 at 18:02
  • 27
    As Davidac says you only need that for any $x$ there exists at least one $y$ such that $x \sim y$. I set this as a homework question for my undergraduate groups course every year and the answers systematically ignore the necessary assumption – Paul Levy Mar 20 '13 at 20:33
  • 7
    A very similar fallacy: a subset $H$ of a group $G$ is a subgroup if it contains the unit, is closed under multiplication, and is closed under inverses. CLAIM: the second and third condition imply the first. Indeed, take any $x\in H$. Then $x^{-1}$ is also in $H$, so $xx^{-1}=e$ is in $H$. – Dan Petersen Jan 10 '19 at 17:10
  • @DanPetersen Interesting. How is this a fallacy? – trisct Dec 27 '19 at 05:14
  • 5
    @trisct It is a fallacy since $H=\varnothing$ is closed under multiplication and inverses, but is not a subgroup; in this case the first step "take any $x \in H$" fails. – Dan Petersen Mar 31 '20 at 19:45
  • 2
    A nice realization of a counterexample can be the relation: "to love someone". In an ideal world, symmetry and transitivity of this relation should hold. But everyone knows that you can't really love yourself if no one loves you... – Alessandro Della Corte Apr 15 '21 at 22:02
46

Ethan Akin's "proof" that all vector bundles are stably trivial, and hence the $K$-theory of any space must vanish:

Let $V$ be a vector bundle over the base space $B$. Let $T$ be a trivial bundle of the same rank as $V$. To show that $V$ is stably trivial, it suffices to prove that $$V\oplus V=V\oplus T$$.

Let $P$ be the principal bundle associated with $V$. Pull $P$ back over itself to get a bundle $Q$:

Q defined as pullback of P against itself

Then $Q$ (together with the map to $B$) is the principal bundle associated to $V\oplus V$. But the bundle $Q\rightarrow P$ clearly has a section, namely the diagonal map (viewing $Q$ as a subspace of $P\times P$). Thus $Q=P\times GL_n$, which (together with the same map to $B$) is the principal bundle associated to $V\oplus T$.

(Reference: Ethan Akin, K-theory doesn’t exist, JPAA 12 (1978) pp.177–179.)

  • Was the paper peer reviewed? – joro Apr 22 '12 at 14:49
  • 13
    I like this. It shows how easy it is to fool yourself and others by drawing a diagram and saying ''the natural map'' and ''canonically isomorphic'' a few times! Apparently, the paper was peer-reviewed, but it states clearly that the purpose was to discuss a fallacious proof. – Johannes Ebert Apr 30 '12 at 19:55
  • 2
    Every this question bubbles back up to the front page again, this answer is the one that stops me in my tracks for 5 minutes trying to find the error. – Peter LeFanu Lumsdaine Jan 10 '19 at 08:42
44

Theorem: Every bounded differentiable function $f\colon \mathbb{R}\to \mathbb{R}$ is constant.

Proof. By assumption there exist real numbers $M,N$ such that
$$N\leq f(x) \leq M.$$ Taking derivatives we get $$0\leq f'(x)\leq 0.$$ Hence $f'(x)=0$ so $f$ is constant. QED

Denis Serre
  • 51,599
38

Theorem: All people have the same eye color.

Proof by induction: we prove the statement "All members of any set of people have the same eye color". This is clearly true for any singleton set.

Now, assume we have a set $S$ of people, and the inductive hypothesis is true for all smaller sets. Choose an ordering on the set, and let $S_1$ be the set formed by removing the first person, and $S_2$ be the set formed by removing the last person.

All members of $S_1$ have the same eye color, and also for $S_2$. However, $S_1 \cap S_2$ has members from both sets, so all members of $S$ have the same eyecolor. $\square$

37

True Theorem The symmetric groups (consisting of all permutations) on infinite sets of different cardinalities are not isomorphic.

False proof: The two groups have different cardinalities, since there are $2^\kappa$ many permutations of an infinite set of size $\kappa$, and $\kappa\lt\lambda$ implies $2^\kappa\lt 2^\lambda$. QED

See the question: Can the symmetric groups on sets of differing infinite cardinalities be isomorphic? for further information and a correct proof.

I find the false proof illuminating, since it shows the limitation of a naive treatment of the continuum function $\kappa\mapsto 2^\kappa$. It simply isn't necessarily the case that the two groups have different cardinalities, even though it is necessarily the case that they are not isomorphic.

32

Theorem. $\int_0^\infty \sin x \phantom. dx/x = \pi/2$.

Poof. For $x>0$ write $1/x = \int_0^\infty e^{-xt} \phantom. dt$, and deduce that $\int_0^\infty \sin x \phantom. dx/x$ is $$ \int_0^\infty \sin x \int_0^\infty e^{-xt} \phantom. dt \phantom. dx = \int_0^\infty \left( \int_0^\infty e^{-tx} \sin x \phantom. dx \right) \phantom. dt = \int_0^\infty \frac{dt}{t^2+1}, $$ which is the arctangent integral for $\pi/2$, QED.

The theorem is correct, and usually obtained as an application of contour integration, or of Fourier inversion ($\sin x / x$ is a multiple of the Fourier transform of the characteristic function of an interval). The poof, which is the first one I saw (given in a footnote in an introductory textbook on quantum physics), is not correct, because the integral does not converge absolutely. One can rescue it by writing $\int_0^M \sin x \phantom. dx/x$ as a double integral in the same way, obtaining $$ \int_0^M \sin x \frac{dx}{x} = \int_0^\infty \frac{dt}{t^2+1} - \int_0^\infty e^{-Mt} (\cos M + t \cdot \sin M) \frac{dt}{t^2+1} $$ and showing that the second integral approaches $0$ as $M \rightarrow \infty$; but this detour makes for a much less appealing alternative to the usual proof by complex or Fourier analysis.

Still the double-integral trick can be used legitimately to evaluate $\int_0^\infty \sin^m x \phantom. dx/x^n$ for integers $m,n$ such that the integral converges absolutely (that is, with $2 \leq n \leq m$; NB unlike the contour or Fourier approach this technique applies also when $m \not\equiv n \bmod 2$). Write $(n-1)!/x^n = \int_0^\infty t^{n-1} e^{-xt} \phantom. dt$ to obtain $$ \int_0^\infty \sin^m x \frac{dx}{x^n} = \frac1{(n-1)!} \int_0^\infty t^{n-1} \left( \int_0^\infty e^{-tx} \sin^m x \phantom. dx \right) \phantom. dt, $$ in which the inner integral is a rational function of $t$, and then the integral with respect to $t$ is elementary. For example, when $m=n=2$ we find $$ \int_0^\infty \sin^2 x \frac{dx}{x^2} = \int_0^\infty t \frac2{t^3+4t} dt = 2 \int_0^\infty \frac{dt}{t^2+4} = \frac\pi2. $$ As a bonus, we recover a correct proof of our starting theorem by integration by parts:

$$ \frac\pi2 = \int_0^\infty \sin^2 x \frac{dx}{x^2} = \int_0^\infty \sin^2 x \phantom. d(-1/x) = \int_0^\infty \frac1x d(\sin^2 x) = \int_0^\infty 2 \sin x \cos x \frac{dx}{x}; $$ since $2 \sin x \cos x = \sin 2x$, the desired $\int_0^\infty \sin x \phantom. dx/x = \pi/2$ follows by a linear change of variable.

Exercise Use this technique to prove that $\int_0^\infty \sin^3 x \phantom. dx/x^2 = \frac34 \log 3$, and more generally $$ \int_0^\infty \sin^3 x \frac{dx}{x^\nu} = \frac{3-3^{\nu-1}}{4} \cos \frac{\nu\pi}{2} \Gamma(1-\nu) $$ when the integral converges. [Both are in Gradshteyn and Ryzhik, page 449, formula 3.827; the $\nu=2$ case is 3.827#3, credited to D. Bierens de Haan, Nouvelles tables d'intégrales définies, Amsterdam 1867; the general case is 3.827#1, from Gröbner and Hofreiter's Integraltafel II, Springer: Vienna and Innsbruck 1958.]

32

I came across this one in a book of false proofs, the name of which I can't remember. It stuck out because it's not the usual hidden division by $0$ or unestablished base case in an induction.

Theorem: Every implication or its converse must be true.

Proof:

Check the truth table for $(P\to Q)\vee (Q\to P)$ and note that it is a tautology.

$\Box$

However we know that there are many cases where neither an implication nor its converse is true. For example take $P$ to be "$n$ is odd" and $Q$ to be "$n$ is prime."

Jim Conant
  • 4,838
  • 10
    Actually, I like this one. Even if universal quantification is implicit, it is better not to forget that it is there. – Alex Gavrilov Jan 10 '19 at 11:14
  • 4
    But the result is true, it's just that $\forall x (P \longrightarrow Q)$ and $\forall x (Q \longrightarrow P)$ are not implications. – nombre Apr 15 '21 at 19:52
  • 2
    @nombre indeed. The problem is with the application of the result, not the result itself, that and loose language around quantification. – Jim Conant Apr 16 '21 at 04:42
  • @JimConant Did you ever remember the book? – Richard Birkett Jan 16 '24 at 22:00
  • @RichardBirkett yes! "Mathematical fallacies, flaws, and flimflam" by Edward J. Barbeau. It is apparently out of print. https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/mathematical-fallacies-flaws-and-flimflam/0763A5A65168B925E5C441A8D56A2DED# – Jim Conant Jan 17 '24 at 02:21
23

Here's a nice false proof of the continuum hypothesis.

Consider the rational numbers $\mathbb{Q}$ as a totally ordered field. We can add an indeterminate $T_0$ and make it positive but infinitely small (i.e., smaller than positive any element of $\mathbb{Q}$), that is, order $\mathbb{Q}(T_0)$ by lexicographic order of the Laurent series expansion at $0$. Then we can add another indeterminate $T_1$ and make it positive but infinitely small (i.e., smaller than any positive element of $\mathbb{Q}(T_0)$). This process can be iterated transfinitely and we can add $\aleph_1$ indeterminates $T_\iota$ for $\iota<\omega_1$, each infinitely smaller than all the previous ones. The resulting field $K = \mathbb{Q}(T_\iota)$ has cardinality $\aleph_1$ as is easy to show. Now any positive sequence converging to $0$ in $K$ must be eventually constant because it has to cross uncountably many $T_\iota$. So any Cauchy sequence in $K$ is eventually constant. So any Cauchy sequence in $K$ is convergent. So $K$ is complete. But since $K$ contains $\mathbb{Q}$, it contains $\mathbb{R}$. So we have a set of cardinality $\aleph_1$ containing $\mathbb{R}$, which proves the continuum hypothesis.

(The error, of course, is simply that the notion of "completeness" is wrong and its use is nonsense. But if you tell it quickly enough, many people will fall for it.)

Gro-Tsen
  • 29,944
  • 4
  • 80
  • 335
  • 11
    I wouldn't say its "nonsense" -- there's a perfectly sensible notion of "completeness" and "completion" for ordered fields. It just isn't detectable via sequences in general; I'd say that's the real error here. – Harry Altman Jan 15 '13 at 01:50
  • 4
    @HarryAltman That’s not the only error, though. It is also not true that every complete ordered field has to include $\mathbb R$ (e.g., consider the Hahn series field $\mathbb Q[[t^{\mathbb Z}]]$, which, incidentally, is sequential). – Emil Jeřábek Apr 16 '21 at 15:03
  • Oh, wow! I never noticed that before! – Harry Altman Apr 16 '21 at 17:55
23

Another subtle variant of the induction fallacy suggested by Fedor Petrov.

Theorem: every graph without isolated nodes is connected.

Proof Induction on the number of nodes. Clearly the result is true for graphs with 1 (void statement) and 2 nodes. Now, assume we have proved the statement for graphs with up to $n$ nodes. Take a graph with $n$ nodes; by induction hypothesis it must be connected. Let's add a non-isolated node to it. As this node is not isolated, it is connected to one of the other $n$ nodes. But then it's easy to conclude that the whole graph of $n+1$ nodes is connected!

22

Not so much of a proof but rather a computation.

$$\frac{64}{16} = \frac{\not{6}4}{1\not{6}}= \frac{4}{1} = 4$$

by canceling the $6$s.

Karl Schwede
  • 20,257
  • 55
    This reminds me of a student in one of my classes who simplified $\frac{\sin x}{n} = six$. I almost gave him credit for that. – Donu Arapura Apr 21 '12 at 15:06
  • 12
    Likewise $19/95 = 1/5$, $26/65 = 2/5$, and (a bit less satisfactory because not in lowest terms) $49/98 = 4/8$. – Noam D. Elkies Apr 21 '12 at 19:59
  • 12
    For more examples and analysis of these "weird fractions", see A Pumping Lemma for Invalid Reductions of Fractions, Michael N. Fried and Mayer Goldberg, The College Mathematics Journal, Vol. 41, No. 5 (November 2010), pp. 357-364. – Doug Chatham Apr 22 '12 at 21:24
  • 15
    My algebra students know better than to fall for this, but they will try to reduce $\frac{x+3}{x+4}$ to $\frac{3}{4}$. So then I invoke this, asking them if $\frac{13}{14}$ reduces to $\frac{3}{4}$, and (when they say No) asking them what happens when $x := 10$. – Toby Bartels Jun 16 '12 at 15:25
  • A friend of mine once showed me this one, which had been copied by some biologists he was marking: $sin(mx + \pi /2)/sin(mx - \pi/2) = (mx + \pi /2)/(mx - \pi/2) = \pi/2 / - \pi/2 = -1$ – thomashennecke Jul 06 '14 at 11:21
  • 1
    In the same vein, one "proves" in French the equality $\frac{\rm cheval}{\rm oiseau}=\pi$. Read $\frac{\rm horse}{\rm bird}=\pi$, although there is no such proof in English. – Denis Serre Dec 11 '14 at 17:43
  • 2
    Those who were as mystified by cheval/oiseau may find enlightenment at http://algorythmes.blogspot.com/2009/09/cheval-oiseau-pi.html When that link disappears, just type cheval/oiseau = pi into (whatever search engine has replaced) Google. – Gerry Myerson Jan 10 '19 at 15:20
  • Wait till you see this : https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12045-024-1737-2 – Sayan Dutta Mar 07 '24 at 18:46
20

One night I proved that every module is flat. Let $M$ be an $R$-module and let $\mathfrak{a}$ be any ideal of the ring $R$. Tensoring the natural inclusion $i:\mathfrak{a} \to R$ we obtain $i_\ast : M \otimes \mathfrak{a} \to M \otimes R$ such that $i_\ast(x\otimes y)=x\otimes i(y)=x\otimes y$, for every $x\in M$ and $y \in \mathfrak{a}$. So $i_\ast$ is injective and we conclude that $M$ is flat...

15

A common mistake in using induction for statements concerning finite sets is the bad logic "prove it for 1-set, and if we have proved this for $n$-set, add an element and prove it for $(n+1)$-set". I like the following illustrative example proposed by Sergey Berlov:

Theorem. A simple undirected graph with $n$ vertices and $n$ edges contains a triangle.

Proof. For $n<3$ there are simply no such graphs. For $n=3$ a triangle exists. Now add a vertex and an edge. The triangle does not disappear, right?

Fedor Petrov
  • 102,548
13

I always liked this proof, from the theory of Umbral Calculus developed by Rota (See "Combinatorics: The Rota Way", by Joseph Kung, Gian Carlo Rota and Catherin Yan, chapter 4.2).

Proposition: Let $(a_n)_{n\geq 0}$ and $(b_n)_{n \geq 0}$ be sequences. Then $$b_n=\sum_{k=0}^n\binom{n}{k} a_k \ \text{ for all } n \Longleftrightarrow a_n=\sum_{k=0}^n (-1)^{n-k}\binom{n}{k}b_k \ \text{ for all } n.$$

The heuristic proof use the notion of "raising and lowering subscripts and superscript". Raising subscripts at the left side we obtain $$b^n=\sum_{k=0}^n\binom{n}{k}a^k=(a+1)^n.$$ Hence, for all $n$, $$a^n=(b-1)^n=\sum_{k=0}^n (-1)^{n-k}\binom{n}{k}b^k.$$ Lowering exponents, we obtain the inverse relation.

Yannic
  • 527
  • 19
    This doesn't look like a false proof. Rather, it's a proof that looks absurd at first glance but that can be made rigorous if you set up the right theoretical framework. Sort of like certain kinds of manipulations with divergent series, or arguments using infinitesimals, or the Dirac delta function. – Timothy Chow Apr 23 '12 at 14:32
11

Ma & Pa Kettle Math Lesson
YouTube

Gerald Edgar
  • 40,238
11

My favourites are "close" to formal false proofs in Coq.

1) In reply to a challenge by coq developer

Who can address this challenge: find a "simple" statement $T$ (simple in the sense that anyone with a minimal background in logics can understand) such that you can prove both $T$ and $\neg T$ in Coq.

Daniel Schepler solved it here. Daniel's proof was valid and passed coqchk, though it was not enough to prove False in Coq - Coq gave an "Universe inconsistency". AFAICT the proof encoded a paradox.

2) Damien Pous announced and gave link to code

There is a bug with vm_compute and values obtained from functors applications: using the attached code, I can produce an assumption-free proof of False, or Bus errors.

False proofs in Coq are difficult because Coq produces a "certificate" that can be checked for validity (if one doesn't check the certificate and is happy with the compiler as most people do, it is much easier).

joro
  • 24,174
11

$\pi$ is irrational : if $\pi=a/b$ is irreducible, and $a$ is divisible by an odd prime $p$, the series for $\sin \pi =\pi-\pi^3/6+\pi^5/120-\dots$ converges in the $p$-adics, and the limit is obviously not zero, absurd (if $a=2^n$, $n>1$ and the convergence is assured in the 2-adics, with the same contradiction).

Feldmann Denis
  • 3,570
  • 1
  • 18
  • 36
  • 29
    True story that I witnessed in a US precalculus class: the teacher told the class that $\pi$ was a rational number, since $\pi = C/d$, where $C$ is the circumference of a circle and $d$ is the diameter. Since $\pi$ can be written as a fraction, it is rational. This still makes me cringe to this day. – John Engbers May 19 '12 at 18:28
  • Reminds me of https://mathoverflow.net/a/81360/88133. – Zach Teitler Oct 01 '19 at 22:16
11

I can't remember where I first saw this: does anybody recognise it?

Let $I$ be the operator, from $C^0(\mathbb{R})$ to itself, which takes $f(x)$ to $\int_0^xf(z)dz$.

Since the exponential function $e(x)$ is its own derivative, we integrate both sides to get $e(x) = I(e(x)) + 1$. Regarding $1$ as the identity operator, we can rearrange to get $$(1-I)e(x) = 1,$$ and hence $$e(x) = \frac{1}{1-I}1 = (1 + I + I^2 + \cdots)1 = 1 + x + \frac{x^2}{2} + \cdots.$$

James Cranch
  • 3,034
  • 3
    As long as you verify that I is a contraction operator on continuous functions on an interval of length less than 1, this works just fine: the series converges in the max norm, i.e. uniformly. Then you can check that this particular series happens to converge everywhere. Although omitting this check is an error, it seems to me that it just exposes an error in the strategy of using a purely algebraic argument to prove an analytic statement. – Ryan Reich May 19 '12 at 22:51
  • 4
    Indeed, $I$ has zero spectral radius, so the series for $(1-z I)^{-1}$ even converges for all $z$. Notoriously, the exponential series is a particular case of a geometric series. – Pietro Majer Aug 16 '12 at 09:07
10

This one is interesting also in the sense of having an interesting history: In his writings, Cantor used a principle "every set can be well-ordered." As far as I understand, he claimed that it was obvious.

In 1905, König proposed and published an alleged proof that $\mathbb{R}$ cannot be well-ordered:

Suppose that $\mathbb{R}$ is well-ordered with an ordering relation $\preceq$. Since there are uncountably many reals, there is an undefinable one (say, undefinable even in the language with the symbol $\preceq$). Since $\preceq$ is a well-ordering, there exists the least one $x_0$ which is not definable. But we have just defined it. A contradiction.

In the same year, a paper by Zermelo ''A proof of the principle that every set can be well-ordered'' was published. The author reduced the controversial principle to several reasonably looking statements which became a basis of what is known as Zermelo--Fränkel set theory.

On the other hand, what became known as König paradox had to wait a bit to be resolved until better understanding of truth predicates was obtained.

Denis Serre
  • 51,599
user57888
  • 1,229
  • 4
    Note that of course Konig's argument would also imply the nonexistence of $\omega_1$. (History question: did Konig observe this at the time, or did he just focus on $\mathbb{R}$?) – Noah Schweber Mar 28 '21 at 17:49
10

Many years ago, I came up with this stupid proof that all groups are abelian: $$ab^{-1}=a\cdot{1\over b}={a\over b}={1\over b}\cdot a=b^{-1}a$$ I called it The Passing Through Theorem.

10

One usual "proof" of Leopoldt Conjecture is that $\mathbb{Z}_p$ is $\mathbb{Z}$-flat, hence the rank of the $p$-adic completion of the units of a number field has the same rank of the units themselves (which is Leopoldt Conjecture) because you can obtain the completion simply as $\mathcal{O}^\times\otimes\mathbb{Z}_p$.

Marc Palm
  • 11,097
9

I have known the following for 45 years: in the Euclidian plane, every triangle is isosceles.

The false proof needs a handmade picture; take your pen, it's easy. Start from a triangle $ABC$. Draw the perpendicular bisector of $BC$, and the angle bisector from $A$. Let $I$ be their intersection (if it is not unique, you are done). Let $J$ be the projection of $I$ over $AB$, $K$ that over $AC$. Considering the right triangles $AIJ$ and $AIK$, we see that (lengths) $AJ=AK$, and that $IJ=IK$. Then looking at right triangles $BIJ$ and $CIK$, we obtain that $BJ=CK$. We conclude that $$AB=AJ+JB=AK+KC=AC.$$

The falsity is that one of $J$ or $K$ is in the triangle, and the other one is out. Therefore one of the sums above (and only one) should be a difference.

Denis Serre
  • 51,599
9

Josh Nichols-Barrer wrote a delightful proof of Fermat's Last Theorem (and much more) here:

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/rec.humor/wUZ9gBmMchM/V9OS_or6gIQJ

In a nutshell: if $x^n+y^n=z^n$ then by differentiating and dividing by $n$, we get $x^{n-1}+y^{n-1}=z^{n-1}$. There are no integer solutions to $x^0+y^0=z^0$, so by induction Fermat's Last Theorem holds. As corollaries, there are no Pythagorean triples, and also addition is a lie. (But this is just a summary of Josh's amusing post.)

Zach Teitler
  • 6,197
  • Don't you need additional work to show $0^0 \ne 0$? – joro Nov 03 '21 at 07:47
  • 2
    @joro $0^0=1$ and anyway even if that were an issue it would hardly be the only issue with this proof. :-) – Zach Teitler Nov 03 '21 at 13:56
  • "Differentiate to obtain...", like Josh says, is really masterful math writing As he observes, this "implies" that no two real (complex, btw) numbers add up to a third one. Luckily multiplication still resists. – Alessandro Della Corte Apr 12 '23 at 11:18
9

This proof that $\pi=0$ may be of some interest in examinations.

The function $f(x)=\arctan(x)+\arctan(1/x)$ has derivative $f’(x)=\frac1{1+x^2}-\frac1{x^2} \frac{1}{1+\frac1{x^2}}=0$, hence it is constant. Therefore$\displaystyle \lim_{x\to+\infty}f(x)= \displaystyle \lim_{x\to-\infty}f(x)$, that is $\frac\pi2=-\frac\pi2$, whence $\pi=0$.$\quad\square$

Pietro Majer
  • 56,550
  • 4
  • 116
  • 260
8

I would like to submit the following false proof of $\mathbf{P} \neq \mathbf{NP}$ which got me confused for a minute and illustrates the importance of putting quantifiers in the right place:

The error is that while both statements are correct for a certain interpretation of “relative to a generic oracle $G$”, the order of the quantifiers is different: the first says that any language $L$ which is in $\mathbf{P}^G$ (resp. $\mathbf{NP}^G$) for a comeager set of $G$ is in fact in $\mathbf{P}$ (resp. $\mathbf{NP}$) (and conversely); the second says that there is a comeager set of $G$ such that there exist languages $L$ which are in $\mathbf{NP}^G$ not in $\mathbf{P}^G$.

Gro-Tsen
  • 29,944
  • 4
  • 80
  • 335
8

Given any $x$, we have (by using the substitution $u=x^2/y$) $$ \int_0^1 {x^3\over y^2} e^{-x^2/y}\,dy = \biggl[x e^{-x^2/y}\biggr]_0^1 = x e^{-x^2}.$$ Therefore, for all $x$, $$\eqalign{e^{-x^2}(1-2x^2) &= {d\over dx}(xe^{-x^2})\cr &= {d\over dx} \int_0^1 {x^3\over y^2} e^{-x^2/y}\,dy\cr &= \int_0^1 {\partial \over \partial x} \biggl({x^3\over y^2} e^{-x^2/y}\biggr)\,dy\cr &= \int_0^1 e^{-x^2/y} \biggl({3x^2\over y^2} - {2x^4\over y^3}\biggr)\,dy.\cr} $$ Now set $x=0$; the left-hand side is $e^0(1-0) = 1$, but the right-hand side is $\int_0^1 0\,dy = 0$.

The main idea for this proof comes from an entry in Gelbaum and Olmstead's book Counterexamples in Analysis.

Timothy Chow
  • 78,129
8

Theorem: Every totally disconnected set has the discrete topology.

Proof: Let $X$ be a totally disconnected set. If $X$ has only one element, the conclusion clearly follows. Otherwise, for distinct points $a, b \in X$, we have that {$a, b$} $\subset X$ is not connected. Therefore, {$a, b$} admits a separation; but the only way to write this as a disjoint union of nonempty sets is {$a$} $\cup$ {$b$}. Since this gives a separation, each of {$a$} and {$b$} is open. In particular, {$a$} is open for any $a \in X$; so $X$ has the discrete topology. Q.E.D.

B D
  • 1
  • 12
    Well, the proof would prove more and be much simpler if, instead of looking at the subspace ${a,b}$, you just look at the subspace ${a}$. Now ${a}$ is obviously open, so every topological space whatsoever is discrete. – Toby Bartels Jun 16 '12 at 15:36
  • UGH this reminds me of when I once wrote about rational points $\mathbb{Q}^d$ being discrete in euclidean space and was interrogated as to why... I must have thought connected components are clopen in their containing space (I had separations in the back of the mind, which I now have it sharply burned that components do not form). – Vandermonde Apr 27 '20 at 03:47
7

Let me recycle this.

$\phantom{*******}$

Pietro Majer
  • 56,550
  • 4
  • 116
  • 260
6

Here is an interesting false proof as to how to multiply $2 \cdot 2$. Taken from this link.

alt text


$\Large\textbf{Another example}$:

alt text

Glorfindel
  • 2,743
C.S.
  • 4,735
5

I'm fond of the following false proof of the Strong Law of Large Numbers. Let $X$ be a random variable with expected value $\mu$ and variance $\sigma^2$, and let $X_1, X_2, \dots$ be i.i.d. copies of $X$. Then $$\operatorname{Var} \left( \frac{1}{n} \sum_{i=1}^n X_i \right) = \frac{1}{n^2} \cdot n \sigma^2 = \frac{\sigma^2}{n} \rightarrow 0 \textrm{ as } n\rightarrow\infty $$ and since a random variable with variance 0 takes on a single value with probability 1, we must have $$\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty} \frac{1}{n} \sum_{i=1}^n X_i = \mu \textrm{ almost surely.}$$ (It's a memorable heuristic reason to tell undergraduate probability students, even if not a true argument.)

Denis Serre
  • 51,599
Russ Woodroofe
  • 3,367
  • 1
  • 23
  • 21
  • It does constitute a proof of the weak law of large numbers, and it shows that if the limit $\lim_{n \to \infty} \frac{1}{n} \sum_{i=1}^n X_i$ exists almost surely, it must equal $\mu$. – Nate Eldredge Mar 20 '13 at 22:54
  • For the SLLN, isn't there an issue in exchanging the limit with the integral implicit in the variance? Even for the WLLN, it seems to me that the technical details needed (e.g. Chebyshev's Inequality) rather "ruin the pristine elegance", to quote a previous comment. – Russ Woodroofe Mar 21 '13 at 05:03
4

In S. Bosch's Algebra, exercise 3.4.2 is to find an error in the following existence proof of an algebraic closure of a field $K$ (my translation):
"Consider all algebraic extensions of $K$. Since for a totally ordered (w.r.t. inclusion) family $(K_i)_{i \in I}$ of algebraic extensions of $K$, the union $\bigcup_{i \in I} K_i$ is an algebraic extension of $K$, Zorn's lemma shows the existence of a maximal algebraic extension, i.e. of an algebraic closure of $K$."

Added: Cf. https://math.stackexchange.com/q/621944/96384 for various discussions around, and actually working variants of, this flawed proof.

4

I like to amuse calculus students with this trick: let us calculate by integrating by parts: $$ \int \frac{dx}{x}=\int (x')\frac{1}{x}\,dx=x\cdot\frac{1}{x}-\int x\cdot \left(\frac{1}{x}\right)'\,dx=1+\int\frac{dx}{x}, $$ and we simplify to $0=1$.

Kostya_I
  • 8,662
4

I just found the following false proof of the (correct!) Skolem-Mahler-Lech theorem, which I think is interesting.

Statement of (correct) theorem: Suppose $f(z) := \sum_{n=0}^{+\infty} a_n z^n \in \mathbb{C}[[z]]$ is rational. Let $b_n$ equal $1$ when $a_n\neq 0$ and $0$ when $a_n = 0$. Then $g(z) := \sum_{n=0}^{+\infty} b_n z^n$ is also rational.

False proof: Since $f$ is defined by a linear recurrence relation, correcting for the uninteresting constant term, we can interpret it as the series recognized by a weighted finite automaton on the unary language (i.e., consisting of words over the single letter $z$; so the automaton is just a digraph with complex “multiplicities” associated to edges, and $a_n$ is the number of paths of length $n$, each counted with a multiplicity given by the product of the multiplicities of the edges, from an initial node to a final node: see, e.g., Bousquet-Mélou, “Rational and algebraic series in combinatorial enumeration”, §2). Now make this automaton deterministic (or at least unambiguous) while forgetting multiplicities: in the new automaton, the number of paths of length $n$ from an initial node to a final node is simply $b_n$, i.e., $1$ or $0$ according as there is or isn't such a path in the original automaton. But for the same reason (backwards), $g$ is now given by a linear recurrence relation, so it is rational.

Comment: The error is simply that when forgetting multiplicities we also forget possible cancellations between them: two paths could have multiplicities summing to zero. But the proof does work, and generalize to more variables, when $f$ is $\mathbb{N}$-rational, because no cancellation is possible: see the correct statements in Berstel & Reutenauer, Noncommutative Rational Series with Applications, esp. chapter 3 lemma 1.4. So the idea of the proof isn't stupid and gives related theorems, and the conclusion as stated is correct, yet the proof probably can't be fixed to yield that exact conclusion (because it would then work over any field, which isn't true), so I think this qualifies as an interesting proof.

Gro-Tsen
  • 29,944
  • 4
  • 80
  • 335
4

An excelent example is the iscosceles triangle fallacy. Here is a link to it in wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_fallacy#Fallacy_of_the_isosceles_triangle

Gorka
  • 1,825
  • That silly article appeals to "accurate instruments", when all that's needed is the circumscribed circle and the central/peripheral angle identity. Check: The location of D depends only on the angle at A! – some guy on the street Jun 16 '12 at 16:49
3

I have always found interesting, as a student as well as teacher, the "proof" that every derivative is continuous:

Let $f: \mathbb{R} \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ be differentiable. Fix any $x_0 \in \mathbb{R}$ and $h > 0$, by the mean value theorem we find $\xi \in (x_0,x_0+h)$ such that:

$$ f'(\xi) = \frac{f(x_0+h) - f(x_0)}{h} \implies \lim_{h \to 0} f'(\xi) = \lim_{h \to 0} \frac{f(x_0+h) - f(x_0)}{h} =f'(x_0),$$

where in the last equality we used that $f$ is differentiable. The conclusion follows since $h \to 0$ entails $\xi \to x_0$.

GaC
  • 163
  • I guess this is basically the valid proof that $f'$ doesn't have removable or jump discontinuities (if you modify a little bit to use one-sided limits). – Zach Teitler Mar 26 '21 at 21:13
  • Yep, exactly: you just have to assume that the derivative has (finite) one sided limits. – GaC Mar 27 '21 at 08:56
3

Timothy Chow's answer has a nice application. Let $n,x,y,z$ be natural numbers such that $x^n+y^n-z^n=0$. It follows that $e^{x^n+y^n-z^n}=1=e^i$ and the absurd $$1=(e^{x^n+y^n-z^n})^\pi=e^{i\pi}=-1.$$

  • It can be used in the Millenium Prize Problems too ;-) – joro Apr 25 '12 at 11:10
  • We must take seriously that $e^i=1$ was written on a wall of Princeton University math department! Of course, I'm enjoying of the friendly tone of your question (the tag is "recreational"). –  Apr 25 '12 at 14:10
2

We have $$\int \text{sec}^2(x)\tan(x)dx=\int \text{sec}^2(x)\tan(x)dx$$ $$\int \tan(x)d(\tan(x))=\int \text{sec}(x)d(\text{sec}(x))$$ $$\frac{\tan^2(x)}{2}+C=\frac{\text{sec}^2(x)}{2}+C$$ $$\frac{\tan^2(x)}{2}=\frac{\text{sec}^2(x)}{2}$$ $$\tan^2(x)=\text{sec}^2(x)$$ for all $x\in\mathbb{R}$.

  • Properly, of course, $\tan^2(x)+C_1=\sec^2(x)+C_2$ for some appropriately chosen constants of integration $C_1,C_2$. Forgetting the constants in indefinite integrals is a bane of many a mathematician. – Oscar Lanzi Dec 01 '23 at 20:40
2

The celebrated hook length formula (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hook_length_formula) says that the number of standard Young tableaux of shape $\lambda \vdash n$ is $n! \cdot \prod_{u\in \lambda}h_u^{-1}$ where $h_u$ is the hook length of the box $u$ of $\lambda$.

A heuristic argument (I hesitate to call it a "proof") put forward by Knuth for this formula goes as follows. In a random injective filling of the boxes of $\lambda$ with the numbers $1,2,\ldots,n$, the probability that a given box $u$ has the smallest number in its hook is $h_u^{-1}$. Moreover, such a filling is an SYT if and only if each box is filled with the smallest number in its hook. "Thus", the probability that a random filling is an SYT is $\prod_{u\in \lambda}h_u^{-1}$, and so the number of SYTs is $n! \cdot \prod_{u\in \lambda}h_u^{-1}$. The error with this false proof is of course that the events of boxes being filled with the smallest numbers in their hooks are not independent. But it is quite interesting that we arrive at the correct probability treating these events as independent.

Sam Hopkins
  • 22,785
2

The Graham Pollak theorem is discussed at this link Combinatorial results without known combinatorial proofs . I came up with a nice short and incomplete proof of it. The tricky part for me was to realize it was incomplete. Follow the commentary if you want to see my "D'oh" moment. The induction started by taking an a,b complete bipartite subgraph of an (a+b) complete graph.

Gerhard "The Induction Looked So Pretty" Paseman, 2012.04.21

2

A cavalry sergeant has 24 horses available which he needs to put on 6 carriages. So he needs to divide 24 by 6. He figures that 6 will go into 24 at least once, so he puts down a 1. Subtracting 6 from 24, he gets 18, and he remembers that 18/6=3. So he comes up with the answer 13.

After considerable difficulty with implementing his solution he consults his lieutenant. The lieutenant checks the calculation by evaluating 13*6:

3*6=18 1*6=6

Add them: 24.

Implementation of the result still remains elusive so they consult the colonel, who uses a different method to check. Write down 13 six times and add.

13

13

13

13

13

13

In adding this up, the colonel arrives at the following sequence of intermediate results: 3,6,9,12,15,18,19,20,21,22,23,24.

  • 3
    I think something must have gotten lost in the typography--this doesn't make a lot of sense as it appears on my screen. – Dylan Thurston Apr 22 '12 at 11:29
  • 5
    This is incomprehensible as posted but begins to make sense after you've followed the link in Gerald Edgar's answer. – Steven Landsburg Apr 22 '12 at 16:51
  • I could not figure out how to properly line up columns. I know how to do it in TeX, just not in "Math Overflow TeX." I hope the verbal description I substituted is clearer. – Michael Renardy Apr 22 '12 at 22:59
  • 2
    Essentially the same proof is shown here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lo4NCXOX0p8 (an old Abbot & Costello sketch). – Ketil Tveiten Apr 25 '12 at 11:11
2

Some years ago, I came up with this false proof of the irrationality of $\pi$.

It suffices to prove that $x=\pi-3$ is irrational.

For real $y$ with $0\le y\lt1$, and positive integer $j$, define $d_j(y)$ to be the $j$th digit in the decimal expansion of $y$.

Let $r_1,r_2,\dots$ be an enumeration of the rationals in $[0,1)$. The $\it value$ of this enumeration is $n$ if $d_n(r_n)=d_n(x)$ and $d_j(r_j)\ne d_j(x)$ for $j\lt n$. If there is no such $n$, then the value of the enumeration is infinite. Note that if there is an enumeration of infinite value, then $x$ is irrational; it cannot equal any of the enumerated rationals, as it differs from the first rational in (at least) the first decimal place, from the second in the second, etc.

Note also that there are enumerations of arbitrarily large value. For, given any $n$, you can find $n$ rationals such that the first differs from $x$ in the first decimal, the second differs from $x$ in the second decimal, and so on, and then any enumeration that starts off with these $n$ rationals will have value greater than $n$.

Now, the set of all enumerations of the rationals can be partially ordered by value; if $E_1$ and $E_2$ are enumerations, then $E_1>E_2$ if the value of $E_1$ exceeds the value of $E_2$. By Zorn's Lemma, there is an enumeration maximal with respect to this order. This maximal enumeration cannot have a finite value --- as we have seen, there are enumerations of arbitrarily great finite value. So, it must have infinite value. So, $x$ is irrational.

An alternative use for this argument is to apply it to prove that $1/3$ is irrational, the contradiction with the known rationality of $1/3$ thereby establishing that Zorn's Lemma is false.

Gerry Myerson
  • 39,024
  • 5
    Wouldn't it be easier (and pretty much equivalent) to prove that Zorn's Lemma is false by noting that it implies the existence of a largest natural number? – Steven Landsburg Apr 23 '12 at 06:16
  • 9
    Sure, but if you make it too easy you make it too obvious. Better to obscure the fallacy in lots of irrelevant verbiage. – Gerry Myerson Apr 23 '12 at 12:51
2

I think that the history of this wrong proof of the Riemann hypothesis is pretty interesting:

http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=707

In the end, it motivated a paper by Bombieri and Lagarias

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.53.3791

Marc Palm
  • 11,097
  • Interesting. But wrong proof is different from false proof IMHO. – joro May 01 '12 at 05:53
  • However, I do not think that the wrong proof is to far away from what you call false proof. In the end, the nitpick was an issue of well-definedness of a function, which was nonzero on a measure zero set. This is pretty close to "dividing by zero" for my taste. – Marc Palm May 01 '12 at 10:12
  • See e.g. this answer of S.Carnahan: http://mathoverflow.net/questions/49811/measure-of-adeles-minus-ideles – Marc Palm May 01 '12 at 11:05
  • OK, I didn't know this. – joro May 01 '12 at 15:23
1

Mostly based on mlk's comments here

Lemma 1 $\lim_{x\to 0^+} x^0=1$, so $0^0=1$.

Lemma 2 $\lim_{x\to 0^+} 0^x=0$, so $0^0=0$.

Therefore $1=0$.

joro
  • 24,174
1

Theorem 1: All integers solutions to $a^2+b^2=c^2$ are given by $a,b,c=(2 x y , x^2 - y^2 , x^2 + y^2)$

Proof: We use sagemath to parametrize the conic:

sage: K.<a,b,c>=QQ[]
sage: co=Conic(a^2+b^2-c^2);pa=co.parametrization();pa
(Scheme morphism:
   From: Projective Space of dimension 1 over Rational Field
   To:   Projective Conic Curve over Rational Field defined by a^2 + b^2 - c^2
   Defn: Defined on coordinates by sending (x : y) to
     (2*x*y : x^2 - y^2 : x^2 + y^2),
 Scheme morphism:
   From: Projective Conic Curve over Rational Field defined by a^2 + b^2 - c^2
   To:   Projective Space of dimension 1 over Rational Field
   Defn: Defined on coordinates by sending (a : b : c) to
     (1/2*a : -1/2*b + 1/2*c))

Counterexample to Theorem 1:

$a,b,c=(9,12,15)$.

Proof: $15$ is not the sum of two integer squares.

joro
  • 24,174
0

I think nobody point to these interesting false proof:

Let $i=\sqrt{-1}$ be the complex number.

$1)$ $1=\sqrt{-1\times-1}=\sqrt{-1}\times\sqrt{-1}=i\times i=-1$.

$2)$ We know that $x^\frac{2}{6}=x^\frac{1}{3}\Rightarrow (\sqrt{x^2})^\frac{1}{6}=(\sqrt{x})^\frac{1}{3}$. Now, let $x=-1$ and so we have: $$(\sqrt{(-1)^2})^\frac{1}{6}=(\sqrt{-1})^\frac{1}{3}\Rightarrow1=-1.$$

Shahrooz
  • 4,746
-1

The limit of a function, if it exists, is unique. Indeed, from $\lim_{x\to x_0} f(x)=L_1$ and $\lim_{x\to x_0} f(x)=L_2$, exploiting symmetry and transitivity of the equality you readily deduce $L_1=L_2$.

  • 2
    Rather than an "interesting" false proof, this seems to me a notational ambiguity. Writing "$\lim_{x\to x_0} f(x)=L_1$" it seems that you are already assuming uniqueness, whereas (in general) limits can form a set with more than one element. – Francesco Polizzi Apr 16 '21 at 08:00
  • You have a point, of course, and "interesting" is subjective. It seems so to me because I see students using notation this way all the time. In fact even some texbooks providing a correct proof of the above theorem start writing down something like that, so it seems a nice way to point out the incorrect use of the notation. – Alessandro Della Corte Apr 16 '21 at 08:13
  • 1
    Yes, in fact my personal idea of "interesting false proof" is more something like "proof which is flawed for some subtle conceptual reason". But I understand what you mean. – Francesco Polizzi Apr 16 '21 at 08:16
  • 3
    Years ago a student came to me asking for clarifications on some exercises on limits I had left. “I did this limit and I got 1” I checked and said “Correct!”. “And then I did exercise 2 and I got 0”. I checked again and said “Correct!”. He said: “But doesn’t this contradict the uniqueness of the limit?” – Pietro Majer Sep 28 '21 at 21:16
  • That's a nontrivial generalization. From Solution to Exercise 1 = $L_1$ and Solution to Exercise 2 = $L_2$ he couldn't conclude $L_1=L_2$ with my proposed technique. I wonder which more powerful technique he used. – Alessandro Della Corte Sep 28 '21 at 22:16
  • 2
    @AlessandroDellaCorte The more powerful technique, which I've seen too many students use, is to remember a slogan, like "uniqueness of limits" or some formula highlighted in the textbook, while forgetting the surrounding words, like the hypotheses that underlie the slogan. – Andreas Blass Sep 28 '21 at 23:54
  • 4
    All limits are unique, but some limits are more unique than others. – Gerry Myerson Nov 02 '21 at 23:40
-2

Doron Zeilberger proved that P is equal to NP

Abstract: Using 3000 hours of CPU time on a CRAY machine, we settle the notorious P vs. NP problem in the affirmative, by presenting a “polynomial” time algorithm for the NP-complete subset sum problem. Alas the complexity of our algorithm is $O(n^{10^{10000}})$ (with the implied constant being larger than the Skewes number).

joro
  • 24,174