Take the 2-minute tour ×
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.

In honor of April Fools Day 2013, I'd like this question to collect the best, most convincing fake proofs of impossibilities you have seen.

I've posted one as an answer below. I'm also thinking of a geometric one where the "trick" is that it's very easy to draw the diagram wrong and have two lines intersect in the wrong place (or intersect when they shouldn't). If someone could find and link this, I would appreciate it very much.

share|improve this question

closed as not a real question by Arthur Fischer, Brandon Carter, Micah, Eric Naslund Apr 2 '13 at 15:36

It's difficult to tell what is being asked here. This question is ambiguous, vague, incomplete, overly broad, or rhetorical and cannot be reasonably answered in its current form. For help clarifying this question so that it can be reopened, visit the help center.If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

8  
@ThomasAndrews Can we please at keep this open for just a day? That question doesn't have the two proofs I've mentioned in my question, either. The answers there aren't very good. –  Potato Apr 1 '13 at 15:03
4  
Potato, I'd suggest making this CW, then, community wiki. –  amWhy Apr 1 '13 at 15:04
5  
Unless someone is giving a good reason otherwise, I'm keeping this question open. –  DonAntonio Apr 1 '13 at 15:15
26  
One of the best ever fake, or at least apparently-fake, proofs in mathematics goes more or less as "I've found a truly wonderful proof but the margin is too $\rlap{-----------}{\text{...ejem,ejem...marginal...er...}}$ small to contain it..." –  DonAntonio Apr 1 '13 at 15:27
9  
How come Math.SE is the only place on the SE network where FUN is still allowed? I guess that blows away the stereotype that Math geeks are not fun. (Clearly programmers are NO fun, however.) –  Warren P Apr 1 '13 at 21:14

27 Answers 27

Timothy Chow has posted a proof that $1=0$ via an illicit differentiation under the integral sign on his website, here is a quote:

Proof that $1=0$

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

share|improve this answer
24  
Care to type the proof in here? It would make for a much more pleasant read of the whole page. –  Git Gud Apr 1 '13 at 15:10
25  
"Illicit differentiation" sounds so much more exciting than implicit differentiation. –  Adam Saltz Apr 1 '13 at 18:56
2  
There is no need for any kind of differentiation under the integral sign. The essence of the argument is this: for $a > 0$, $\int_1^\infty ae^{-ax}dx = e^{-a}$. Now let $a \rightarrow 0^{+}$. The left side has limit $\int_1^\infty 0dx = 0$ and the right side has limit $e^{-0} = 1$. Maybe not... –  KCd Apr 1 '13 at 21:57

A friend of mine came up with this proof that all perfect numbers are even. A little more advanced than your usual fake proof that $0=1$.

Assume $$2n = \sum_{d|n} d$$

Then by Möbius inversion:

$$n =\sum_{d|n} 2d\cdot\mu\left(\frac{n}{d}\right)$$

and therefore $n$ is even.

share|improve this answer
3  
This is a great example! I heard it over 20 years ago, so I doubt your friend is the first person to make this "observation". –  KCd Apr 1 '13 at 15:46
2  
@KCd Hah, it was at math camp in the early 80s, so we're talking 20 years ago for me, too. –  Thomas Andrews Apr 1 '13 at 15:47
7  
It was at math camp for me too, in the late 80s. Did your camp happen to be located in Ohio? –  KCd Apr 1 '13 at 15:52
24  
Yep, the Ross program. :) Guess it was the same instance. –  Thomas Andrews Apr 1 '13 at 15:53
16  
@Thomas: You kids! :-) I did it in $1963$, when it was still at Notre Dame. –  Brian M. Scott Apr 1 '13 at 20:37

All cats have the same color by induction on the number of cats.

Base case: If there is only one cat, then it doesn't matter the color. They all have the same color.

Inductive step: Fix $n$. Suppose for any set of $n$ cats they have the same color. Consider any set of $n+1$ cats. Then cats 1 through n have the same color by inductive hypothesis. There is only one remaining to check, but we also know that cats $2$ through $n+1$ have the same color by the inductive hypothesis. Thus they must all have the same color (for example, because they all have the same color as the second one in this proof). QED.

...But clearly not all cats have the same color...

share|improve this answer
19  
There are a few typos: you typed group instead of set and cats instead of horses. –  Git Gud Apr 1 '13 at 15:08
8  
In the internet age, I think it is more appropriate to prove that "all cats on youtube have the same color" instead of "all horses have the same color." –  treble Apr 1 '13 at 15:27
2  
@GitGud I'm not sure how group/set actually matters here. Also, I intentionally didn't use "horses" so that people couldn't just google to figure out the error. –  Matt Apr 1 '13 at 16:08
5  
Since the above commenters seem to be unsure: The problem is that the proof assumes the two sets (1 thru n, and 2 thru n+1) intersect, which they do not for n = 1. –  BlueRaja - Danny Pflughoeft Apr 1 '13 at 18:43
1  
The inductive step is valid for $n+1\ge 3$. So this leads to the "theorem" that if any two cats have the same color, then any finite set of cats consists of one color only. –  Jeppe Stig Nielsen Apr 2 '13 at 15:24

$$x^2=\underbrace{x+x+\cdots+x}_{(x\text{ times})}$$ $$\frac{d}{dx}x^2=\frac{d}{dx}[\underbrace{x+x+\cdots+x}_{(x\text{ times})}]$$ $$2x=1+1+\cdots+1=x$$ $$2=1$$

share|improve this answer
20  
Nice one. You took one $x$ as a variable and the other $x$ as constant!. –  Hat Man Apr 1 '13 at 15:19
28  
Also, the first statement isn't true unless $x$ is a positive integer, so it can hardly be used with differentiation by $x$ regardless. After all, $\sin \pi x=0$ is true for all integers $x$, but that doesn't mean we can differentiate both sides to get equality. @boywholived –  Thomas Andrews Apr 1 '13 at 15:26
    
@Thomas Andrews.What you said is right and is a better reason too. –  Hat Man Apr 1 '13 at 15:37
4  
@boywholived No, your argument is good too - he is essentially differentiating $xy$ by $x$ and then substituting $y=x$. –  Thomas Andrews Apr 1 '13 at 15:42
1  
dougshaw.com/findtheerror/FTEdiff.html –  spin Apr 2 '13 at 13:26

Here is a another proof that "0=1". $$0=(1-1)+(1-1)+(1-1)+(1-1)+\cdots=1-1+1-1+1\cdots=1+(-1+1)+(-1+1)+(-1+1)+(-1+1)\cdots=1+0+0+\cdots=1$$. Of course, this proof fails becaus the series $\Sigma (-1)^n$ is divergent.

share|improve this answer
7  
How about this one: Let S = 1+2+4+8+16+... Then 2S = 2+4+8+16+32+... Subtraction of first minus second gives -S = 1 ans so S = -1 therefore -1 = 1+2+4+8+16+..... –  imranfat Apr 1 '13 at 16:49
8  
@imranfat: That is actually true when working in the $2$-adics... –  TMM Apr 1 '13 at 18:59
    
Am I not getting it or we just missed -1 after third equals sign just before the fourth one? –  Denys S. Apr 2 '13 at 14:38
    
@TMM: I think proofs like these are canonical examples of proofs which are false in one setting (e.g. standard convergence over the reals), but which in other settings with the same formalism (e.g. p-adics, or formal power series, or even just other notions of convergence/summability over the reals) may turn out to be true, and quite useful. –  Peter LeFanu Lumsdaine Apr 2 '13 at 15:08
1  
@Peter The original proof actually has applications in topology as the Mazur swindle where infinite sums are defined (but addition is not necessarily cancellative). –  Erick Wong Apr 2 '13 at 15:25

Theorem: If we mark $n$ points on a circle and connect each point to every other point by a straight line, the number of regions that the interior of the circle is divided into is $2^{n-1}$.

Proof: First let's collect numerical evidence.

When $n = 1$ there is one region (the whole disc).

When $n = 2$ there are two regions (two half-discs).

When $n = 3$ there are 4 regions (three lune-like regions and one triangle in the middle).

When $n = 4$ there are 8 regions, and if you're still not convinced then try $n=5$ and you'll find 16 regions if you count carefully.

Our proof in general will be by induction on $n$. Assuming the theorem is true for $n$ points, consider a circle with $n+1$ points on it. Connecting $n$ of them together in pairs produces $2^{n-1}$ regions in the disc, and then connecting the remaining point to all the others will divide the previous regions into two parts, thereby giving us $2 \cdot 2^{n-1} = 2^n$ regions.

Or does it...

share|improve this answer
6  
A good lesson in the dangers of both making assumptions based on examples, and of lacking rigor in your proofs. –  Jack M Apr 1 '13 at 16:41
1  
It depends on the way you place the dots, but the maximum number of regions is given by the sequence $\{1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 31, 57, 99, 163, 256, 386, 562, 794, 1093, 1471, 1941, 2517, 3214, 4048, 5036, 6196, 7547, 9109, 10903, 12951, 15276, 17902, 20854, 24158, 27841, 31931, 36457, 41449, 46938, 52956, 59536, 66712, 74519, 82993, 92171,\ldots\}$. i.e. A006522$+n$ –  Spenser Apr 2 '13 at 14:44
4  
Actually it is in OEIS directly: A000127 –  Spenser Apr 2 '13 at 14:52
1  
It is interesting that there is actually a polynomial expression for this: $$a(n)=\frac{1}{24}n^4-\frac{1}{4}n^3+\frac{23}{24}n^2-\frac{3}{4}n+1$$ –  Spenser Apr 2 '13 at 17:23
2  
@Spenser: Yes, the small powers of 2 happen to match the polynomial sequence $1 + \binom{n}{2} + \binom{n}{4}$. Similarly, $1 + \binom{n}{2} + \binom{n}{4} + \cdots + \binom{n}{2r}$ equals $2^{n-1}$ for $1 \leq n \leq 2r+1$, and it equals $2^{n-1} - 1$ for $n = 2(r+1)$. –  KCd Apr 2 '13 at 23:00

Simple one:

$1 = \sqrt{1} = \sqrt{(-1)\cdot(-1)} = \sqrt{-1}\cdot \sqrt{-1} = i\cdot i = -1$

share|improve this answer
34  
$\sqrt{a\cdot b}=\sqrt{a}\cdot\sqrt{b}$. Is valid only when both $a$ and $b$ are positive. –  Hat Man Apr 1 '13 at 16:03
77  
@boywholived: yes, the idea is that these are fake proofs. –  robjohn Apr 1 '13 at 16:04
21  
A nice variant of this that does not require complex numbers is $-1=(-1)^{1/3}=(-1)^{2/6}=((-1)^2)^{1/6}=1^{1/6}=1$. –  Baby Dragon Apr 1 '13 at 16:30
19  
@robjohn Yes...but boywholived is pointing out the problem with the proof...valuable to those who may not see the issue. After all, if the problem with the proof was obvious, it wouldn't qualify as much of a joke. –  Beska Apr 1 '13 at 17:37
1  
@boywholived It is valid only when at least one of them is non-negative. –  Alraxite Apr 2 '13 at 7:41

Here's a fun compilation of fake proofs in calculus. One of them is already here, but I'll give another example: \begin{align*} \int_{-1}^1\frac{dx}{1 + x^4} &=\int_{-1}^1\frac{\frac{1}{x^4}}{\frac{1}{x^4} + 1}dx\\ u &= \frac{1}{x^4}\\ du &= -\frac{4}{x^5}dx\\ \int_{-1}^1\frac{dx}{1 + x^4} &=\int_1^1\frac{u}{u+1}\left(-\frac{u^{-5/4}}{4}\right)\,du\\ &= -\frac{1}{4}\int_1^1\frac{du}{\sqrt[4]{u}\left(u + 1\right)}\\ &= 0. \end{align*} However, one look at the graph of $\frac{1}{1 + x^4}$ (or a quick estimate) tells us that the integral in question is certainly nonzero!

share|improve this answer
    
Please look at the moderator's note at the beginning of the post. –  Hat Man Apr 1 '13 at 16:47
    
@boywholived Right, I had posted that there because this post had linked there. I have since deleted the answer from the "duplicate" question. –  Stahl Apr 1 '13 at 16:48
    
The answer to integral is not incorrect at all! It is just that you wanted to calculate the area under the curve and that didn't work. The answer to an integral itself does not always have to give you the area under the curve unless that is what the question states. –  imranfat Apr 1 '13 at 16:49
1  
@imranfat I agree that in general an integral does not have to represent the area under a curve. However, in this case, we can interpret the integral in question as the area under the curve of the graph of $1/(1 + x^4)$ without fear, and that's one way of seeing that this calculation cannot be correct. –  Stahl Apr 1 '13 at 18:18
1  
@Integral the substitution we consider is invalid: here's the theorem: Suppose that $f$ is continuous on an open interval $I$. *Let $u$ and $u'$ be continuous on an open interval $J$*, and assume that the range of $u$ is contained in $I$. If $a,b\in J$, then $\int_a^b f(u(x))u'(x)\,dx = \int_{u(a)}^{u(b)} f(u)\,du$. Certainly, the $u$ we use here is not continuous on the interval in question, $(-1 - \epsilon,1 + \epsilon)$. –  Stahl Apr 2 '13 at 15:13

Proof that a dog has 9 legs:

No dog has 5 legs,

A dog has 4 more legs than no dog.

A dog has 9 legs

Taken from: Foolproof: A Sampling of Mathematical Folk Humour, P Renteln, A Dundes

share|improve this answer
4  
This is great, I am going to share this with my class RIGHT NOW!!! –  imranfat Apr 1 '13 at 16:58
15  
Cries logical Bobby to Ned, will you dare // A bet, which has most legs, a mare, or no mare. // A mare, to be sure, replied Ned, with a grin, // And fifty I’ll lay, for I’m certain to win. // Quoth Bob, you have lost, sure as you are alive, // A mare has but four legs, and no mare has five. –  Pål GD Apr 1 '13 at 17:44
2  
By that theorem, a ham sandwich is better than eternal happiness. –  Joe Z. Apr 1 '13 at 19:16
7  
Actually, given that animals are occasionally born with two heads, I think the assumption that no dog has 5 legs is probably invalid. It's probably safer to use a larger number like 100. –  Tacroy Apr 1 '13 at 23:03
4  
^ But what if genetic science finds a way to create a centipedal dog? –  Joe Z. Apr 17 '13 at 17:06

Boywholived's zero$^{th}$ fundamental theorem of calculus: $$\int\limits_{0}^{a}{f(x) dx}=0\space \space \quad \quad \forall a \in \mathbb{R} \text{ and } \forall f(x) \in\mathcal{R}\left(\left(0,a\right)\right)$$


Proof

It's well known that $$\int\limits_{0}^{0}{f(x) dx}=0\space \space \quad \quad \forall f(x) \space \tag{1} $$

Case I

When $a=0$ The theorem at this case follows directly from $(1) $

Case II

When $a\neq 0$

Let $\large I=\int\limits_{0}^{a}{f(x) dx}$ Let $\large \sin{\frac{\pi \cdot x}{a}}=t $. Then $\large \frac{\pi}{a}\cos{\frac{\pi \cdot x}{a}}dx={dt}$ $$\cos{\frac{\pi \cdot x}{a}}=\sqrt{1-\sin^{2}{\frac{\pi \cdot x}{a}}}=\sqrt{1-t^2}$$ $$dx=\frac{a}{\pi}\cdot\frac{dt}{\sqrt{1-t^2}}$$

As we have introduced a substitution we should change the variables of the limit. $$\begin{cases} x=0 & \text{then } t=0, \text{ (lower limit)} \\ x=a & \text{then } t=0, \text{ (upper limit)}\end{cases}$$

We have $$I=\int\limits_{0}^{a}{f(x) dx}=\large \int\limits_{0}^{0}{\left(\frac{f(\frac{a}{\pi}\cdot\arcsin{t})}{\sqrt{1-t^2}} dt\right)}=0$$

Q.E.D.

share|improve this answer
    
You could change $\pi$ to $a$ , $a\in \mathbb{R}$ and you would get a generalization. –  Ishan Banerjee Apr 2 '13 at 9:49
    
There’s no reason to consider Case I separately — the current Case II covers it anyway (nowhere in Case II do you use the assumption that $a ≠ 0$). –  Peter LeFanu Lumsdaine Apr 2 '13 at 14:57
5  
@Peter LeFanu Lumsdaine. I think we should consider case 1 $a=0$. Otherwise our initial substitution $\sin{\frac{\pi \cdot x}{\boxed{a}}}=t$ would . . . .. –  Hat Man Apr 2 '13 at 15:22

Proof that Riemann hypothesis is true:

(1) At least one of the following statements is true

(2) The above statement is false

(3) Riemann hypothesis is true

share|improve this answer
5  
Well I do not know the above theorem, but I know the fallacy is regarding that "Every mathematical statement is not necessarily either true or false". –  Grobber Apr 1 '13 at 18:02
1  
For example consider: "This statement is false", the cyclicity generated by its truth and falsehood makes the statement to be classifiable as none. –  Grobber Apr 1 '13 at 18:04
2  
@GregMartin: There is a difference: in your example, both (1) and (2) could be taken to be false, or both to be true, and there is no inconsistency in either case. In the above (fake) proof in the answer though, (1) is not a premise, but can be "proved" to be true: if (1) is false, then both (2) and (3) are false and in particular (2) is false, which means that (1) is true, which is a contradiction. Therefore (1) is true, and therefore (2) is false, and therefore as at least one of (2) and (3) are true, (3) must be true. –  ShreevatsaR Apr 2 '13 at 6:28
2  
@GregMartin: I don't understand what you mean by accepting the trio of statements as true: we did no such thing (and in fact "proved" statement (2) to be false). Self-reference is crucial to the argument (the way (1) refers to (2) which refers back to (1)), which is why your first example shows nothing, while your second example with "either this sentence is false..." does. If you mean accepting that each statement in the system is either true or false, yes that is the flaw as Grobber already pointed out above before you first commented — and self-reference is required for it to give anything. –  ShreevatsaR Apr 2 '13 at 8:54
3  
@HonzaBrabec: it’s not unrelated to Gödel’s incompleteness; but it’s most closely related, I think, to Tarski’s undefinability of truth, which essentially states that no reasonably strong logical system can talk about truth-values of its own statements. The two main ingredients of that are (a) some deep thought to formalize precisely what that self-reference means, and (b) having done this, a quick derivation of a contradiction. Part (b) can be done — among other ways — by the present false proof, with RH replaced by absurdity. –  Peter LeFanu Lumsdaine Apr 2 '13 at 14:54

All numbers are interesting.

Assume there is at least one uninteresting number. Then there is a non-empty set of uninteresting numbers. There is also a smallest uninteresting number. That makes it an interesting number so we remove it from the set of uninteresting numbers and repeat until we have removed all uninteresting numbers from that set.

share|improve this answer
    
I think you mean to say that the set of uninteresting numbers is non-empty. –  Git Gud Apr 1 '13 at 17:18
    
I guess so. Of course if we did start with an empty set of uninteresting numbers there would be no need for the proof. –  Keith Wolters Apr 1 '13 at 17:29
    
I mean instead of "then there is a set of uninteresting numbers", so you can then conclude, by the well ordering principle that "there is also a smallest uninteresting number". –  Git Gud Apr 1 '13 at 17:31
5  
I have heard this proof with "There is a smallest uninteresting number. Hey, that's pretty interesting! Contradiction." –  Yoni Rozenshein Apr 1 '13 at 18:24
    
Works for the natural numbers at least. I guess it would work for the reals by applying Zorn's lemma... –  usul Apr 1 '13 at 18:52

Consider the following (obviously) wrong proposition:
$\underline{\text{Proposition}}$
All positive natural numbers are definable in under eleven words.

$\underline{\text{Proof}}$
Suppose for the sake of contradiction(!) that not all positive natural numbers are definable in under eleven words. Then there is a smallest integer $n\in\mathbb N$ which is not definable in under eleven words. But this number is $$ \color{brown} { \text { the smallest positive integer not definable in under eleven words, } } $$ therefore, it is definable in ten words. Contradiction!

--

For more information see the wikipedia article Berry paradox.

share|improve this answer
7  
So which number is "the largest positive integer definable in ten words or less"? –  Joe Z. Apr 1 '13 at 19:17
3  
@JoeZeng "Ackermann with (Ackermann with (Graham, Graham), Ackermann with (Graham, Graham))"? Does that count? –  Cole Johnson Apr 2 '13 at 1:02
2  
@JoeZeng why should there need to be one? –  crf Apr 2 '13 at 3:12
1  
@Max all nonempty sets of positive natural numbers have a smallest element... –  jwg Apr 2 '13 at 9:09
    
@crf: Can you prove there isn't one? –  Joe Z. Apr 2 '13 at 12:46

enter image description here

Endless chocolate bar (I do not know the author of this animation)

share|improve this answer
89  
I have tried this but doesn't work .my choco-bar ended in few minutes. –  Mr.ØØ7 Apr 1 '13 at 17:30
2  
Also see Missing square puzzle and Dissection Fallacy (making it into a chocolate bar is pretty recent innovation intended to make the paradox accessible to non-math-enthusiasts that's been going around the memesphere lately). –  anon Apr 1 '13 at 18:14
36  
For those wondering... the two large pieces get taller as they move--watch their bottoms closely. –  ErikE Apr 1 '13 at 19:25
3  
In light of ErikE's comment, not really math. Still nice eye candy though. Pun intended. –  Yoni Rozenshein Apr 1 '13 at 22:41
8  
@Yoni, it is math. See the Expert's link for the missing square puzzle. It's connected to solving $ax+by = 1$ in integers. –  KCd Apr 1 '13 at 23:10

The proof that $\pi = 4$, discussed here: Is value of $\pi = 4$?

  1. Inscribe a unit circle inside a square with side $4$.
  2. Repeat the following: For every vertex of the polygon (at first the square) that does not touch the circle, "fold it" so it touches the circle (by creating two additional vertices, so that all angles are right angles).
  3. The length of the polygon is always $4$, but the polygon converges to the circle, so $\pi = 4$.
share|improve this answer
4  
Fractals can be tricky when it comes to perimeter. –  Jon Purdy Apr 1 '13 at 18:30
3  
What does converge, however, is the area. –  oldrinb Apr 1 '13 at 22:20
    
Very true; math is full of such convergent/divergent conundrums. The Gabriel's Horn, for instance, has infinite surface area (because it has infinite length/depth and at every point along its length a nonzero diameter), but a finite convergent volume. –  KeithS Apr 1 '13 at 23:08
1  
@KeithS: Careful, if one uses $\frac{1}{x^2}$ to make Gabriel's horn instead of $\frac{1}{x}$, then both the volume and surface area area finite, despite the fact that it "has infinite length/depth and at every point along its length a nonzero diamter." –  Jason DeVito Apr 1 '13 at 23:38
3  
So, $\lim_{}{4} =\pi$? –  Cole Johnson Apr 2 '13 at 1:17

Here's a fake proof that there are no natural numbers $p$ and $q$ such that $\sqrt{2} = \frac{p}{q}$. Suppose it were the case and further suppose, without loss of generality, that $p$ and $q$ are relatively prime. Then $\sqrt{2} = \frac{p}{q}$ and so $$2q^{2} = p^{2}, \tag{*}$$ which means that $p$ is even. Thus $p=2r$ for some natural number $r$. Plugging that into (*) gives $2q^{2} = 4r^{2}$, so that $q^{2} = 2r^{2}$, which means $q$ is also even, contrary to the assumption that $p$ and $q$ are relatively prime.

share|improve this answer
13  
That proof is not fake. That is a proof by contradiction, a well established method for disproving conjectures –  imranfat Apr 1 '13 at 18:48
16  
@imranfat (I think that's his joke, considering it's April Fools day...) –  Quantumplation Apr 1 '13 at 19:23

Let $f(x) = 1$. It's easy to see that its Fourier transform is $0$ almost everywhere, so $\hat {\hat f}(x) = 0$. By the inversion theorem, $1 = 0$.

share|improve this answer

$$\int \frac{1}{x}dx = x\cdot\frac{1}{x} - \int x\,d\frac{1}{x}$$ $$\int \frac{1}{x}dx = 1 + \int x\frac{1}{x^2}dx$$ $$\int \frac{1}{x}dx = 1 + \int \frac{1}{x}dx$$ $$0 = 1 $$

share|improve this answer
    
This one is good, I actually got out a bit of paper and did it myself before noticing the missing C! –  Nick Apr 2 '13 at 13:26
10  
From C to shining C! –  ncmathsadist Apr 2 '13 at 17:08

Here's a "proof" of $e^{x} = 1$ for all $x$. $$\exp(x) = \exp(i2\pi\cdot\frac{x}{i2\pi}) = \exp(i2\pi)^{\frac{x}{i2\pi}} = 1 ^{\frac{x}{i2\pi}} = 1.$$

share|improve this answer
1  
This is a nice one, would you mind stating which = sign is incorrect? I assume the second one because of incorrect rules of exponents since there are complex numbers involved? –  imranfat Apr 1 '13 at 20:09
1  
Yes, it's the second equality :) –  Long Apr 1 '13 at 20:13

$$\begin{align*} \sum_{k\ge 1}\frac1k&=\sum_{k\ge 0}\left(\frac1{2k+1}+\frac1{2k+2}\right)\\ &=\sum_{k\ge 0}\frac{4k+3}{(2k+1)(2k+2)}\\ &=\sum_{k\ge 0}\left(\frac{2(2k+1)}{(2k+1)(2k+2)}+\frac1{(2k+1)(2k+2)}\right)\\ &=\sum_{k\ge 0}\left(\frac1{k+1}+\frac1{(2k+1)(2k+2)}\right)\\ &=\sum_{k\ge 1}\frac1k+\sum_{k\ge 0}\frac1{(2k+1)(2k+2)}\\ &=\sum_{k\ge 1}\frac1k+\sum_{k\ge 0}\left(\frac1{2k+1}-\frac1{2k+2}\right)\\ &=\sum_{k\ge 1}\frac1k+\sum_{k\ge 1}\frac{(-1)^{k+1}}k\\ &=\sum_{k\ge 1}\frac1k+\ln 2\;, \end{align*}$$

so $\ln 2=0$, and $2=e^{\ln 2}=e^0=1$.


The legitimate version of this shows that $$\sum_{k=1}^{2n}\frac{(-1)^{k+1}}k=H_{2n}-H_n\;,$$ where $H_n$ is the $n$-th harmonic number, and with the observation that

$$\ln\left(2-\frac1{n+1}\right)=\int_{n+1}^{2n+1}\frac{dx}x<H_{2n}-H_n<\frac1{n+1}+\int_n^{2n}\frac{dx}x=\frac1{n+1}+\ln 2$$

is one way to show that $\sum\limits_{k\ge 1}\frac{(-1)^{k+1}}k=\ln 2$.

share|improve this answer
2  
This is also another proof that the harmonic series diverges. –  Grumpy Parsnip Apr 1 '13 at 22:33
    
Or does it just prove the harmonic series doesn't converge absolutely? –  Jason DeVito Apr 1 '13 at 23:38
    
@Jason: Same thing, since it’s a positive series. –  Brian M. Scott Apr 1 '13 at 23:40
    
@Brian: Oh, Duh! Thanks! –  Jason DeVito Apr 1 '13 at 23:40

"Proof" that 1 is the largest natural number.

Let $n$ be the largest natural number. Then, $n^2$, being a natural number, is less than or equal to $n$. Therefore $n^2-n=n(n-1)\leq 0$. Hence, $0\leq n\leq 1$. Therefore $n=1$.

share|improve this answer
2  
I know these are all joke proofs, but this is also a good reminder about the importance of proving the existence of a mathematical object before you go on to prove things about said object. Otherwise you can prove lots of interesting but nonsensical things. –  Josh Chen Jul 12 '13 at 1:34
1  
@JoshChen Sometimes it's good to prove some properties of a mathematical object first - if some of them give you an easy proof of nonexistence. –  Daniel Fischer Jul 27 '13 at 21:01

$1=2$: A Proof using Complex Numbers

This supposed proof uses complex numbers. If you're not familiar with them, there's a brief introduction to them given below. The Fallacious Proof:

Step 1: $-1/1 = 1/-1$
Step 2: Taking the square root of both sides: $\sqrt{-1/1} = \sqrt{1/-1}$.
Step 3: Simplifying: $\sqrt{-1} / \sqrt{1} = \sqrt{1} / \sqrt{-1}$
Step 4: In other words, $i/1 = 1/i$.
Step 5: Therefore, $i / 2 = 1 / (2i)$,
Step 6: $i/2 + 3/(2i) = 1/(2i) + 3/(2i)$,
Step 7: $i (i/2 + 3/(2i) ) = i ( 1/(2i) + 3/(2i) )$,
Step 8: $(i^2)/2 + (3i)/2i = i/(2i) + (3i)/(2i)$,
Step 9: $(-1)/2 + 3/2 = 1/2 + 3/2$,
Step 10: and this shows that $1=2$.

See if you can figure out in which step the fallacy lies.

share|improve this answer
    
Hint : Its Steps 2 and 3 –  Ajo Koshy Apr 2 '13 at 8:32

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

Expansion: $$(n+1)^2-(2n+1) = n^2$$

Subtract from both sides: $$(n+1)^2-(2n+1)-n(2n+1) = n^2-n(2n+1)$$

Add to both sides: $$(n+1)^2-(n+1)(2n+1) = n^2-n(2n+1)$$

Factor: $$(n+1)^2-(n+1)(2n+1)+\frac{(2n+1)^2}{4} = n^2-n(2n+1)+\frac{(2n+1)^2}{4}$$

Add to both sides: $$\left[(n+1)-\frac{2n+1}{2}\right]^2 = \left[n-\frac{2n+1}{2}\right]^2$$

Square root: $$(n+1)-\frac{2n+1}{2} = n-\frac{2n+1}{2}$$

Subtract from both sides: $$n+1 = n$$

Subtract from both sides: $$1 = 0$$

Impossible!

share|improve this answer
1  
Took me a while to figure this one out. I typed each expression in my TI and left hand side equals right hand side. Until I reache the square root part. The problem is the square root. If A² = B² that does not automatically imply A=B, it could also be A=-B That's an awesome example! –  imranfat Apr 2 '13 at 19:48

Let me prove that the number $1$ is a multiple of $3$.

To accomplish such a wonderful result we are going to use the symbol $\equiv$ to denote "congruent modulo $3$". Thus, what we need to prove is that $1 \equiv 0$. Next I give you the proof:

$1\equiv 4$ $\quad \Rightarrow \quad$ $2^1\equiv 2^4$ $\quad \Rightarrow \quad$ $2\equiv 16$ $\quad \Rightarrow \quad$ $2\equiv 1$ $\quad \Rightarrow \quad$ $2-1\equiv 1-1$ $\quad \Rightarrow \quad$ $1\equiv 0$.

share|improve this answer
    
How "does" $2 \equiv 16 \implies 2 \equiv 1$? Is it because $1 \equiv 4$ and $16 / 4 \in \mathbb{N}$? That doesn't seem to follow... what am I missing? –  WChargin Jun 6 at 23:45

Whatever goes up, must come down

Rules of Mathematics prove that this is a wrong rule and should be discarded

Proof:

Eq 1. Goes Up = Comes Down

Eq 2. (1 / Goes Up) = (1 / Comes Down)

Since Goes Up means inverse of Comes Down, hence

That means Goes Up = (1 / Comes Down)

From Eq2, we can say

Comes Down = (1 / Comes Down)

Which is Impossible!

Hence proved that this is wrong, and Whatever goes up must keep going up!

share|improve this answer
12  
Well, what if Comes Down = 1? –  Joe Z. Apr 2 '13 at 12:50
    
How would that be so? –  Hanky 웃 Panky Apr 2 '13 at 13:18
    
I dunno, you could arbitrarily set it to be that, I suppose. –  Joe Z. Apr 2 '13 at 13:34
7  
or also $-1$ ....... –  Andrea Mori Apr 2 '13 at 16:18
1  
I would say mathematically, Goes up would be the additive inverse, and not multiplicative, of comes down. –  Sabyasachi Apr 7 at 6:15

The scientist/engineer's proof that all odd numbers are prime...

  • 1 is prime
  • 3 is prime
  • 5 is prime
  • 7 is prime
  • 9 - experimental error
  • 11 is prime
  • 13 is prime
  • 15 - experimental error
  • 17 is prime
  • 19 is prime

Therefore, by extension (ignoring the scientific errors), all odd numbers are prime.

share|improve this answer
15  
Someone with an art degree would say: all odd numbers are prime? Let's check: 1 is prime, 2 is prime, 3 is prime, 4 is prime, 5 is prime, ... –  Oltarus Apr 2 '13 at 15:28
3  
Isn't "$1$ is prime" some kind of error too? –  WChargin Jun 6 at 23:42
1  
@WChargin: Experimenter error. –  user21820 Jun 27 at 9:58
1  
Quod errat demonstrator –  octatoan Oct 28 at 17:30

We shall prove that $x=e^{\pi/2} \approx 4.8$ is a solution to $x^x=x$.

First, we compute $i^i = e^{i \log i} = e^{i(\pi/2i)} = e^{- \pi/2}$. Next we compute $i^{i^i} = e^{-pi/2 i} = -i$. Then $x=i^{i^{i^i}}=(-i)^i=e^{i\log (-i)}=e^{i(-\pi/2 i)}=e^{\pi/2}$.

Finally, $x^i=i^{i^{i^{i^i}}}=e^{i \pi/2}=i$.

Raise each side of the previous equation to the $i^{i^i}$th power. We get $$ x^{i^{i^{i^i}}}={i^{i^{i^i}}}$$ or $$x^x=x$$ where $x=e^{\pi/2}$.

share|improve this answer

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