Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

I'm a children's book writer and illustrator, and I want to to create a book for young readers that exposes the beauty of mathematics. I recently read Paul Lockhart's essay "The Mathematician's Lament," and found that I, too, lament the uninspiring quality of my elementary math education.

I want to make a book that discredits the notion that math is merely a series of calculations, and inspires a sense of awe and genuine curiosity in young readers.

However, I myself am mathematically unsophisticated.

What was the first bit of mathematics that made you realize that math is beautiful?

For the purposes of this children's book, accessible answers would be appreciated.

share|cite|improve this question
For me Euclid's proof of the infinitude of primes was the first thing that made me realize the beauty of mathematics. – Manjil P. Saikia Mar 7 '13 at 7:02
Wow. Just last night I had a fierce argument with one of the bartenders of my usual watering hole who is a mechanical engineering student. He insisted that he has a better idea than me of what is mathematics. I am so going to print him a copy of Lockhart's text. Thank you for that link! – Asaf Karagila Mar 7 '13 at 7:59
I can’t remember a time when I didn’t think that mathematics was beautiful and fascinating. – Brian M. Scott Mar 7 '13 at 15:06
Although I don't know if it's what you are looking for, try looking up "vihart" on youtube--Even if it's not helpful, I guarantee you will appreciate it. – Bill K Mar 8 '13 at 2:57
I think it's a shame that this question was voted closed... – Will Mar 10 '13 at 19:50

162 Answers 162

I believe it was when I was in 5th grade. I used to enjoy adding the digits of the plate numbers of vehicles until it resulted in a single digit result. I was excited to realize that all I had to do was eliminate nines from the number. Example 9468 is 9 (removing 9,6+3, 8+1), 3454 is 7 (what remains after removing 5+4). It's simple but it sure made travelling fun for me.

share|cite|improve this answer
That (including the removing of nines) was almost a compulsion for me... well,. it still is (i'm 46) – leonbloy Mar 7 '13 at 12:08
I still do it too...everytime I'm driving and I have things weighing on my mind...I guess some things never stop entertaining you... – uday1889 Mar 8 '13 at 11:02
In Ontario, license plates only have three digits on them :\ – Joe Z. Mar 8 '13 at 20:12
Then you have a better task ahead of you. Represent the alphabets as numbers and concatenate then add. I envy the fun you're gonna have :) – uday1889 Apr 13 '13 at 9:14
I do it all the time too! :D – Yan Yau Dec 11 '14 at 14:49

It's not the first one that made me love math (what made me love math isn't math itself at all, but rather someone pointing out to me that I was pretty good at math -- and then I proceeded to like math haha), but this is the most amazing discovery I made when I was 15.

$$ Pr(X = r) = \frac{(nCr)(x-1)^{n-r}}{x^{n}} $$

Which is really just a restatement of the binomial distribution:

$$ Pr(X = r) = (nCr)(p^{r})(p^{n-r}) $$

where $p = 1/x$, so it works only makes sense for integer values. For example, the chances of choosing one blue jar out of 10 differently colored ones would be $x=10$, but also $p=0.1$.

I discovered it after one week of exhaustively listing down all the permutations of the letters n, t, g, and b and figuring out what patterns they looked like when you took only 1, 2, 3, and 4 elements. Then I went ahead and added more and more letters until I arrived at that formula by inspection.

In my opinion, it isn't the math itself that makes kids dislike math. It's all the people around them who dislike math who make kids dislike math.

share|cite|improve this answer
I agree with that opinion! You should check out the OP's link to Paul Lockhart's essay. – Will Mar 7 '13 at 16:38

Complex numbers was awesome to me

        i² = - 1
share|cite|improve this answer
$$\lim_{n\to\infty}\left(1+\frac in\right)^n=\cos1+i\sin1$$which can be proven geometrically. Expanding it out with the binomial theorem gives us series representations of the cosine and some of 1. I thought I'd share it with you, because it's fairly amazing. – Akiva Weinberger Nov 13 '14 at 2:57
If you haven't seen limits yet, I'm basically saying that $(1+\frac i{1000})^{1000}\approx\cos1+i\sin1$, and that it gets more and more accurate as you replace 1000 by bigger numbers. (EDIT: radians, of course.) – Akiva Weinberger Nov 13 '14 at 3:00

Pi has always fascinated me. The notion that perimeter of every possible circle imaginable divided by its diameter always results Pi is astonishing.

share|cite|improve this answer

Not sure if it was the first, but one very early one for me was realizing if you knew the square of an integer, you could easily step to the next one by adding the known square, the original integer and the next integer together.
Know $2^{2}$
Want $3^2$

$3^2 = 2^2 +2 +3 $
$3^2 = 4+2 +3$
$3^2 = 9$

or $(n+1)^2 = n^2 + n + (n +1)$

Another although much later point for me was when Calculus just clicked (4th time taking Calc 1). It was like cracking The Matrix.

I could see derivatives and integrals in everything around me and the relationship between the trig functions suddenly made sense.

Also the magic of Fourier and Laplace transformations.

share|cite|improve this answer

I discover that math is beautiful again and again, I suspect there is no end to this. Some of things that blew my mind:

  • The very first thing that hooked me to science in general was the ability to model reality. When I was a child my father showed me how differential equations (by then I had no idea what it was) could simulate reality (it was masses connected by springs and dampers with some simple graphical representation).
  • Prime numbers. The natural numbers are intrinsic to the world and so a prime numbers. If there is a sentient alien race, they are aware of prime numbers (or they will be someday).
  • The numbers $e$ and $\pi$, their interconnection, and importance in both continuous and discrete worlds.
  • Fourier transform (both continuous and discrete). There is no denying: Fourier transform is just awesome, the sheer number of applications, implications, similar transforms, etc. speaks for itself.
  • The 3D proof of Desargues' theorem. It's one of those illuminative cases where considering a harder case simplifies the problem.
  • The probabilistic method. The first time I saw it, it was very inspiring, also the person of Paul Erdős is very inspiring too (and funny, e.g. the title of "Permanent Visiting Professor").
  • Randomness, randomized algorithms, and the P vs. NP problem. There is something incredible in the fact that for some problems the only fast solutions we know are randomized, any known deterministic approach is way slower (the canonical example being checking if the symbolic determinant of a matrix containing variables is zero).
  • ... this ever-growing list continues...


share|cite|improve this answer

As a child, I liked drawing.

When I realized that there was an easy way of telling whether it is possible to draw a given figure in a single stroke, I was intrigued.

I read this in a popular mathematics book and it can be easily explained to a child.

(if there is 0 or 2 intersection with odd degree, the figure can be drawn in a single stroke)

share|cite|improve this answer
I discovered that by myself, at about eleven, but at the moment didn't imagine it could be a mathematically relevant fact. – leonbloy Apr 18 '13 at 20:43

$$\sqrt{\sqrt{\dotsb\sqrt{x}}} = 1$$

(or its more precise version: $lim_{n \rightarrow \infty} \sqrt[n]{x}$, for x positive)

As a kid I would always type in a number in my calculator and then keep hitting the square root key until the display went to 1. I would also do this with other keys on the calculator to see what would happen (some would blow up past the capacity of the floating point storage and some would go to 0, some to 1).

share|cite|improve this answer
Actually $\sqrt[n]{x}\to 1$, as $n\to\infty$. – Asaf Karagila Mar 8 '13 at 21:15

Parallel lines. I was amazed to find out that they would never, ever meet.

share|cite|improve this answer

Pythagorean theorem

If $(a, b, c)$ is a Pythagorean triple, then so is $(ka, kb, kc)$ for any positive integer $k$.

$3^2 + 4^2 = 5^2$

Pythagorean triples

share|cite|improve this answer

My two favorite mathy things (not mentioned in other answers) were the powers of 11

11 ^ 0  = 1  (1)
11 ^ 1  = 11  (1, 1)
11 ^ 2  = 121  (1, (1+1), 1) 
11 ^ 3  = 1331 (1, (1+2), (2+1), 1)
11 ^ 4  = 14641 (1, 1+3, 3+3, 3+1, 1) 
11 ^ 5  = 161051  (1, 1+4, (bump 1 to left) 4+6, (bump 1 to left) 6+4, 4+1, 1)
11 ^ 6  = 1771561 (1,1+6, 6+1, 1+0, 0+5, 5+1, 1)

and the estimated relationship btwn powers of 2 and powers of 10 and how they diverge (hard drive manufacturers think this is beautiful :P )

2^10 ~= 10^3 (1024, 1000) "kilo"
2^20 ~= 10^6 (1048576, 1000000) "mega"
2^30 ~= 10^9 (1073741824, 100000000) "giga"
2^40 ~= 10^12 (1099511627776 , 1000000000000) "tera" 
2^n ~= 10^floor(n/3) (where n is a multiple of 10)
share|cite|improve this answer
If you look closely, the first few powers of 11 are rows of Pascal's Triangle. This is not a coincidence. – Joe Z. Mar 8 '13 at 20:16
Hell, I just noticed that you can consider this as kind of a discrete convolution or polynomial multiplication! – flawr Nov 12 '14 at 21:31

In my school when I learned about Cartesian coordinate system was shocking! Because that was the time I learned that was possible to make drawings with numbers.

Unlike most people here, I didn't have so much fun playing with numbers, but everything changed when I realized that I could convert numbers (more precisely, ordered pairs) in drawings over the coordinate plane.

And YES, that was a lot of fun.

share|cite|improve this answer

I remember reading a magazine when I was a kid that asked this question. If you have 6 pieces of spaghetti that extend as long as you please, and you cross them so that they create as many overlaps as 6 sticks allow. How many cross points do you have. Then it asked how many would it be for 17 spaghetti sticks, could you figure it out for any number of spaghetti?

And I remember concluding that $\frac {n(n-1)}2$ is the formula for finding the answer. I was excited at the time. Looking back now I see how elementary that was.

Here is a visual way to see it: enter image description here

So, I started by drawing out a strand of spaghetti assuming that they could be as long as you please and as thin as you please, then I start with one and work my way up to 5 counting how many times they cross.

enter image description here

So then for 5 sticks of spaghetti I labeled all of the crossings. I did this for 6 as well just to see what was happening. I noticed that the number of crossings on each strand of spaghetti was the number of total spaghetti - 1 because it didn't cross itself. So from now on I will refer to the number of spaghetti as n. So to count the number of crossing I knew it was $n-1$ crossings for every stick and $n$ sticks so the total number of crossings was $(n-1)n$ and I noticed that each crossing occurs on two separate sticks, because one crossing is the crossing of two sticks to the total number of crossings is half of the number in the diagram so it was $\frac 12 (n-1)n = \frac {n^2-n}2$

P.S. sorry for using the words crossing and sticks instead of points and lines. It was something that stuck because of the spaghetti analogy in my head. I didn't realize I was doing it until it was too late.

share|cite|improve this answer
Another different but related question is how many pieces of a round pie can you cut using $n$ straight cuts. The answer turns out to be $\displaystyle \frac{n(n+1)}{2} + 1$. – Joe Z. Mar 13 '13 at 20:27

The fact that $\Bbb C$ is algebraically closed.

About 12 years old, after I just learned about quadratic equation such as $x^2=a$ may or may not have solutions, my mother told me about complex numbers: you attach the number $i=\sqrt{-1}$ to real numbers and after that $x^2=-1$ have solutions.

"Nah", I said, "that doesn't help much: although you now have solutions for $x^2=a$ for $a$ in the old number system, which are reals, you still don't have solutions of $x^2=a$ in the new number system, which are complex. You still don't have a solution of $x^2=i$, for example. And having complex solutions for some of the complex numbers is no better than having real solutions for some of the real numbers."

Then she showed me the roots of $x^2=i$ and explained that $x^2=a$ has complex solutions for any complex $a$. The ingenuity of the complex numbers impressed me a lot.

Then she told me about polynomials of degree higher than 2 and that they all have roots in the same field of complex numbers, that you don't need to "attach" $n^{th}$ root of $-1$ or any other number in order to have any polynomial of degree $n$ have roots, that $\sqrt{-1}$ is sufficient for them all. And I was impressed even further.

share|cite|improve this answer
Slightly relevant: consider the "Dual numbers," which are the real numbers with the addition of $\epsilon$ ($\epsilon$), such that $\epsilon^2=0$. In this new number system, you can't always divide ($\frac1\epsilon={}?$), but it's still an interesting thing to work with. (Less useful than the complexes—I think—bit still cool. Note that $p(x+\epsilon)=p(x)+p'(x)\epsilon$. Try deriving the product rule with this.) – Akiva Weinberger Nov 13 '14 at 3:16

Tupper's self-referential formula is a self-referential formula defined by Jeff Tupper that, when graphed in two dimensions, can visually reproduce the formula itself. It is used in various math and computer science courses as an exercise in graphing formulae.

The formula was first published in his 2001 SIGGRAPH paper that discusses methods related to the GrafEq formula-graphing program he developed.

The formula is an inequality defined by: $${1\over 2} < \left\lfloor \mathrm{mod}\left(\left\lfloor {y \over 17} \right\rfloor 2^{-17 \lfloor x \rfloor - \mathrm{mod}(\lfloor y\rfloor, 17)},2\right)\right\rfloor$$ where $\lfloor \cdot \rfloor$ denotes the floor function and $\mathrm{mod}$ is the modulo operation.

Let k equal the following 543-digit integer:

960 939 379 918 958 884 971 672 962 127 852 754 715 004 339 660 129 306 651 505 519 271 702 802 395 266 424 689 642 842 174 350 718 121 267 153 782 770 623 355 993 237 280 874 144 307 891 325 963 941 337 723 487 857 735 749 823 926 629 715 517 173 716 995 165 232 890 538 221 612 403 238 855 866 184 013 235 585 136 048 828 693 337 902 491 454 229 288 667 081 096 184 496 091 705 183 454 067 827 731 551 705 405 381 627 380 967 602 565 625 016 981 482 083 418 783 163 849 115 590 225 610 003 652 351 370 343 874 461 848 378 737 238 198 224 849 863 465 033 159 410 054 974 700 593 138 339 226 497 249 461 751 545 728 366 702 369 745 461 014 655 997 933 798 537 483 143 786 841 806 593 422 227 898 388 722 980 000 748 404 719

If one graphs the set of points $(x, y)$ in $0 \le x < 106$ and $k \le y < k + 17$ satisfying the inequality given above, the resulting graph looks like this (note that the axes in this plot have been reversed, otherwise the picture comes out upside-down):

enter image description here

share|cite|improve this answer

I want to make a book that discredits the notion that math is merely a series of calculations, and inspires a sense of awe and genuine curiosity in young readers.

I was granted immunity from this idea at a very young age.

When I was in 3rd grade (possibly 4th, my memory is a little fuzzy) my father showed my sister and I knotplot (, a piece of software that one of his friends was working with. He explained that his friend was a knot theorist, a kind of mathematician who studied knots.

I had no idea what that really meant, of course. All I knew was that studying knots was apparently a thing that mathematicians did. It wasn't a lot, but it was enough. Whenever the North American math curriculum tried to trick me into thinking that math was about numbers, my brain would reply "You say that... but what about knots?" It was my vaccine.

It also helped that my physicist father insisted on teaching us the interesting bits of math whenever it seemed appropriate. He told us about negative numbers the moment we learned about subtraction (I then obnoxiously quizzed my classmates on the playground. "What's $5-6$?", "Zero?", "Nope! Minus one." It's a wonder I didn't have more friends...). He showed us imaginary numbers when we learned about squares (the mysterious $i$ became another mental vaccine.) When I mentioned $\pi$, he countered by telling me about $e$.

The thing about math is, once you have a general curiosity, you'll start discovering interesting things all over the place. Once that starts happening, you're doomed. Math will never be boring again.

share|cite|improve this answer

I found a book by Isaac Asimov called "Asimov On Numbers" which is a compilation of his essays related to math and numbers.

It was all very fascinating - things like why Roman numerals are inefficient, why zero was such a groundbreaking number to invent, and things like that. You might want to see if you can find that book to get some inspiration.

share|cite|improve this answer

I didn't so much discover mathematics was beautiful as I discovered everything I found beautiful was mathematics. I would have said the dodecahedron was my favorite elementary shape when I was little, but as a teenager I was exposed to the fourth dimension. I became obsessed with symmetry and analogy-based objects, and with the Johnson solids, which gave me a then-ineffable feeling of filling out the quality of symmetry that it always creates good shapes, that there are rules you can make that name exactly the set of good shapes. That "looks right" and "looks wrong" can be made precise, and hence the feeling can be explained, you can learn what it is you're noticing about those shapes that you wouldn't feel when you look at a 3D mesh of a face or a blanket.

share|cite|improve this answer

To me, it was probably an old animated book "Och ta geometria" (eng. "Oh that geometry") written and illustrated by Zlatko Šporer, Nedejko Dragić. In the form of funny comix (check the link for samples), this book introduces basics of geometry from points, segments (not sure if this is the correct name), lines, flat figures and their area to cartesian coordinate system. This was probably the catalyst for my interest in math.

share|cite|improve this answer
What a wonderful book! Is there a way to see more pages? – Georges Elencwajg Mar 7 '13 at 15:48
It's pre-web- and pre-pdf-era book ;) So it can be hard to find it now in digital form. I've got lucky to find link I posted. You can try looking for it by authors' names, here is link to google books info about original book (mine was a polish translation). btw, I've found this book in polish auction site archive, and it's price was below 1 EUR ... very good book for a very nice price – Soul Reaver Mar 8 '13 at 13:11
Thanks for the information, @Soul Reaver. – Georges Elencwajg Mar 8 '13 at 13:19

If you've ever heard of $3,529,411,764,705,882$ being multiplied by $3/2$ to give $5,294,117,647,058,823$ (which is the same as the 3 being shifted to the back), you might consider including that in the book.

There are lots of other examples, like $285,714$ turning into $428,571$ (moving the 4 from back to front) when multiplied by $3/2$, or the front digit of $842,105,263,157,894,736$ moving to the back four times in a row when you divide it by $2$. (There's a leading zero in front of the last term, though.)

share|cite|improve this answer
Difficult to observe without e.g. the unlimited precision of Python. – BobStein-VisiBone Mar 7 '13 at 15:24
Or without some good ol' pencil and paper. – Joe Z. Mar 7 '13 at 15:51
Here's the trick: Take the decimal expansion of 1/(any prime number). That will give you lots of ratios to work with. – Joe Z. Mar 7 '13 at 15:54
  • Like Trevor Wilson, I was awed by human ingenuity where just by looking at "few" given numbers, one can deduce that there are infinitely many primes from reason alone and doing basic operations. (Here is more on Euclid's proof.)

  • As freshman undergrad in college, always loved Theoni Pappas' Joy of Mathematics before being introduced to Raymond Smullyan, Charles Seife (Biography of Zero), Rudy Rucker and Hoftstadter's books.

  • As far as Math.SE's question is concerned, this was an interesting brain teaser and simplicity at best.

===================EDITED THE FOLLOWING BELOW==================== I just realized although the above have been influential, but earliest memory of the workings of mathematics came in the manner of following magic trick aged six or seven:

Effect: Performer asks someone to write down a random long number 4567829872367783456753745673456347567346534756 and he writes the another line of the matching digit, so let's say she writes 1263347567346534756378567563434543534543534545 and after that performer asks another audience member to approach the blackboard on dimly lit stage. Let's say the next random line 8636652432653465243621432436565456465456465454 and random number and as he writes 5555555555555555555555555555555555555999999990 the performer quickly writes below 4444444444444444444444444444444444444000000009 and then pauses. Then he continues his patter: Now I could not have possibly known what digits you would have chosen, right ladies and gentlemen? Well, let me gather my thoughts for a while and clear my I attempt to add this rather cumbersome mess in just the time of writing it down. Then he approaches the blackboard and without hesitation calculates the answer:


which of course proves to be correct.

Method: There is of course no telepathy and the trick is entirely mathematical in nature. If the reader wants the audience to choose the first line make sure the last digit does not end in 0 or 1. So what the practitioner would do is matching the digits of audience write the complement of the number adding to 9. Say the line is of a 10-digit sequence of 5s then the performer should write a 10-digit sequence of 4s. To add the whole block one simply copies down the first line with 2 in front of it and subtracting 2 from the last digit. Hence the need for no 0 or 1 in the first line.

Tips: To make it realistic, make sure it is a cumbersome mess that is not too big of a block. Because say one smart aleck chooses all digits of 0000... and then when performer writes 999999... it may be a give away. Strike a balance between how big the mammoth block should be to appeal awe from students and the reality of randomness in the numbers. The rest is, of course, all up to the showmanship of mentalist.

share|cite|improve this answer
+1 for the first bullet point! I had the same enthralling reaction to the Euclid's proof that there are infinitely many primes. It was the first time in my life that I realized there was more to mathematics than mindless calculation, and it fundamentally changed the course of my life. – user5501 Mar 7 '13 at 9:58

In the elementary school, when I was learning about maps on the geography lessons, I was amazed by the concept of the scale of a map.

It might sound silly now but I was very happy when I understood the relation between ratios of distances and ratios of areas (and ratios of volumes:).

It somehow provoked me to thinking about what length, area and volumes really are, how to define them. And how to define what a map is.

Of course I got familiar with precise definitions much, much later :)

share|cite|improve this answer

When I was in second grade we memorized the times tables through $9$. At the very end of the year, our teacher taught us simple single-digit division. I was floored: "We can reverse multiply?!?!"

I think that got me to pay more attention in math. The first thing that really cemented my love of math was learning set theory in seventh grade (widely reviled as "the new math" by parents and politicians in the U.S.). I wasn't hooked for life until 11th grade when we were given the definition of a relation as a subset of the cartesian cross-product between two sets. I still remember getting chills when I understood that.

share|cite|improve this answer
I personally know that the way my seventh-grade class taught set theory was woefully inadequate, especially the way they introduced us to number sets. You don't define the real numbers as the union of the rationals and irrationals! – Joe Z. Mar 13 '13 at 20:39

If I wrote a book, a few pages would be dedicated to visualizing square root through blocks like this:

square root blocks

A kid can put cards on a table and count the edge rectangles to figure out the approximate square root of any number. With the help of some legos you can even teach cube root!

share|cite|improve this answer

For me it was when I realized that with sine and cosine I could draw a circle!

share|cite|improve this answer
And then experimenting with those functions to draw cool parametric shapes on the calculator ^^ – Thomas Mar 8 '13 at 3:32

This might seem very elementary: but amazed me when I was a child.

The fact that $a\times b = b \times a$.

I would keep drawing boxes on the number line of different lengths and then discovering that they fit snugly into one another. Still seems amazing.

share|cite|improve this answer

The fact that you can add natural numbers successively in the order you prefer and that you can split subtraction:
enter image description here ...I remember that day when got taught this in class which made me really excited so I had to tell my Mum =D

share|cite|improve this answer
I love diagram, haha :) – breeden Jan 31 '14 at 23:01

I have to admit that although I'd frequently been told that mathematics was "beautiful", I didn't really get that while I was in school - even high school. I enjoyed mathematics, and saw plenty of things that were fun, and even cute, but I never really understood any ideas with sufficient depth to think of them as beautiful.

When I did encounter ideas that I found beautiful, it was in my first year at college. In fact, there were two closely related ideas in quick succession. We were just being introduced to vector spaces. This was the first time I'd seen an abstract space, but it didn't really seem to mean much except as a fancy way to talk about high dimensional Euclidean spaces.

But then I saw my first example of a vector space that didn't just look like the vectors I'd seen in high school. It was the space of infinitely differentiable functions: $C^{\infty}$. We were shown the linear operators associated with two common differential equations (exponential growth and simple harmonic motion): \begin{eqnarray} &\frac{\textrm{d}\phantom{y}}{\textrm{d}t} - kI \\ &\frac{\textrm{d}^{2}\phantom{y}}{\textrm{dt}^2} + kI. \end{eqnarray} We saw the fairly routine proofs that these were linear operators on $C^{\infty}$, but then came the magical part: The solution sets to these differential equations were subspaces of $C^{\infty}$, the canonical solutions I was familiar with were basis sets for these solution spaces, and the solution spaces were actually the nullspaces of these operators!

Later (maybe even in that same lecture) we saw how linear regression - the hitherto tedious process of finding the "line of best fit" - could be understood as a linear projection $P$ operator onto a two dimensional subspace of the data space. Given a data vector $\mathbf{x}$, the projected vector $P\mathbf{x}$ represented the line that was closest to the data - the line of best fit - and the difference term $\mathbf{x}-P\mathbf{x}$ represented the error term. I was astonished at how much more elegant this was than the clunky formulas I'd had to memorize in high school.

share|cite|improve this answer

These amazed me quite a lot when I first saw them:

$1.$ Prove that $|(a,b)| =|\Bbb R|$, $\forall a,b\in\Bbb R$ and $a<b$.

$2.$ Both $\Bbb Q$ and $\Bbb R\setminus \Bbb Q$ are dense in $\Bbb R$, but $\Bbb Q$ is countable set while $\Bbb R\setminus \Bbb Q$ is uncountable.

share|cite|improve this answer
At what age?${}$ – mrf Mar 7 '13 at 7:42
In high school( then, i was around $12$) – Aang Mar 7 '13 at 7:46
My brother used to tell me these kind of things from an early age. – Aang Mar 7 '13 at 11:15
You learned about dense, countable and uncountable sets at that age?? Its hard to believe...and its very strange that you have to get so far to see something you considered beautiful. – Integral Mar 7 '13 at 15:23
@tttppp … I read $(a,b)$ as an tuple and completely forgot it could also denote an open interval (which I write $(a..b)$ now) – even after searching for different meanings! It’s times like this that I wonder whether I have some serious brain condition. – k.stm Mar 15 '13 at 15:51

I remember in geometry using direct reasoning once and another by the absurd, and I manage to show that lines are parallel, intersecting at a point, a triangle is isosceles, it is inscribed in a circle ..... I was fascinated by geometry.

share|cite|improve this answer

protected by Zev Chonoles Mar 7 '13 at 22:43

Thank you for your interest in this question. Because it has attracted low-quality or spam answers that had to be removed, posting an answer now requires 10 reputation on this site (the association bonus does not count).

Would you like to answer one of these unanswered questions instead?

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.