Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. Join them; it only takes a minute:

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

What's wrong with this:

$$\large 1^0=1^2$$

Since bases are same, therefore

$$\large 0=2$$

My thinking:

Since the function $\,f(x)=1^x\,$ is not one to one, therefore whenever $\,f(x)=f(y),\,$ $x\,$ need not be equal to $\,y$.


Is my reasoning sound?

share|cite|improve this question
Apparently it is. Otherwise, we'd have $0=2$. – Hagen von Eitzen Jul 22 '14 at 12:52
A proof is not true or false, it's valid or invalid. – lhf Jul 22 '14 at 13:03
Consider: $f(x)=x\cdot 0$. Then $f(0)=f(2)$... – Thomas Andrews Jul 22 '14 at 13:04
some of the false proofs I have seen is that they often ignore basic arithmetic, order of operations and this will not be the case if $(1^0)=(1^2)$ the way a novice like me will look at the question – Gobabis Jul 22 '14 at 13:12
Almost every one of these proofs of $1=2$ works exactly the same way: they take some non-injective function $f$, observe that $f(a) = f(b)$, and then erroneously conclude that $a=b$. Division by zero is a special case of this pattern, where one observes that $0\cdot a = 0 \cdot b$ and then erroneously concludes that $a=b$. – MJD Jul 22 '14 at 15:09
up vote 11 down vote accepted

Yes. That's fine reasoning.

Indeed $f(x) = 1^x = 1 \;\forall x \in \mathbb R$.

Certainly, as you note, $f$ fails to be injective, so it is NOT the case that $\forall x, y \in \mathbb R, \; f(x) = f(y) \implies x = y$.

share|cite|improve this answer
I'm not so sure. What if the argument was that the conjunction of "$$\large 1^1=1^2$$ and $$\large 0^1=0^2$$ is true, therefore 1=2? – Doug Spoonwood Jul 22 '14 at 15:23
@DougSpoonwood: Then the argument would fail for the same reason, since neither $x \mapsto 1^x$ nor $x \mapsto 0^x$ is injective. – Clive Newstead Jul 22 '14 at 15:45
One could alternatively say such cases are all counterexamples to the claim of it being injective. – Semiclassical Jul 22 '14 at 15:47

I like to think of these things in terms of divide-by-zero errors. In that sense, if you take the $\log$ of both sides you get $0\log 1=2\log 1$, and the argument that the bases are the same implying equality is essentially cancelling out the $\log 1$ from each side. This would be valid for $\log b$ for any $b\neq 1$, but $\log 1=0$.

share|cite|improve this answer

Your reasoning is fine. Your reasoning also explains why $\log_b$ is not defined for $b=1$.

share|cite|improve this answer

I'm not sure your reasoning is sound if you define x$^y$ as a binary function f(x,y). The bases being the same also doesn't imply anything about cancellation of the basis. One could have picked -1, or 0 as the base also, or even the imaginary unit "i" and we'd have the same sort of thing going on. For a binary function "A" we only have to have one instance of A(b, d)=A(b,c) where c does not equal d, and "b" is the base of the exponent here for something like this to happen.

share|cite|improve this answer

The best possible explanation could be that f(x)=1^x is not bijective hence making the inverse non existent and so x = y does not mean any thing.

share|cite|improve this answer
I disagree. OP already observed that $f$ is not injective, which is sufficient. Your observation that it is not bijective consists of two things: 1. It is not injective. 2. It is not surjective. But the non-surjectivity is irrelevant here, so OP's explanation is better than yours. – MJD Jul 22 '14 at 15:11

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

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