# Funny identities [closed]

Here is a funny exercise $$\sin(x - y) \sin(x + y) = (\sin x - \sin y)(\sin x + \sin y).$$ (If you prove it don't publish it here please). Do you have similar examples?

## closed as primarily opinion-based by Najib Idrissi, user98602, user147263, apnorton, user2345215Jan 31 '15 at 18:16

Many good questions generate some degree of opinion based on expert experience, but answers to this question will tend to be almost entirely based on opinions, rather than facts, references, or specific expertise. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

• This is related. – J. M. is a poor mathematician Nov 3 '10 at 22:35
• I noticed that your expression can be also written as $\sin(x - y) \sin(x + y) = (\cos y + \cos x) (\cos y - \cos x)$ – Quixotic Nov 4 '10 at 11:09
• I have tripped up many calculus students with this one: $log(1+2+3)=log1+log2+log3$. I am evil... – user641 Dec 8 '12 at 1:23
• @SteveD If only we could find an odd example... – peoplepower Jan 13 '13 at 0:31
• Almost an identity: $$\sqrt{123456790}\approx 11111.11111\,.$$ – Jakob Werner Jul 12 '14 at 18:47

Let $f$ be a symbol with the property that $f^n = n!$. Consider $d_n$, the number of ways of putting $n$ letters in $n$ envelopes so that no letter gets to the right person (aka derangements). Many people initially think that $d_n = (n-1)! = f^{n-1}$ (the first object has $n-1$ legal locations, the second $n-2$, ...). The correct answer isn't that different actually:

$d_n = (f-1)^n$.

• Hooray for Umbral calculus! – Steven Stadnicki Jun 18 '12 at 22:41
• To make this more rigorous, in a sense: We can define a linear operator $L$ acting on $\mathbb{C}[f]$ such that $L(f^n)=n!$ and $L(1)=1$. Thus, we can write $d_n=L\left((f-1)^n\right)$. (Am I doing this right?) – Akiva Weinberger Aug 28 '14 at 4:00

$$\int_0^\infty\frac1{1+x^2}\cdot\frac1{1+x^\pi}dx=\int_0^\infty\frac1{1+x^2}\cdot\frac1{1+x^e}dx$$

• Is this true for any exponent, or just $\pi$ and $e$? – Akiva Weinberger Aug 17 '15 at 19:43
• It's a simple exercise, try it. – Vladimir Reshetnikov Aug 17 '15 at 21:41
• @Vladimir: Would you mind giving a hint? – Jason DeVito Nov 28 '15 at 19:51
• The identity also holds if you replace $\pi$ with Euler's $\gamma$ :) – Vladimir Reshetnikov Nov 29 '15 at 1:19
• Obviously... :) – Hexacoordinate-C Feb 21 '16 at 14:01

Best near miss

$$\int_{0}^{\infty }\cos\left ( 2x \right )\prod_{n=0}^{\infty}\cos\left ( \frac{x}{n} \right )~\mathrm dx\approx \frac{\pi}{8}-7.41\times 10^{-43}$$

One can easily be fooled into thinking that it is exactly $\dfrac{\pi}{8}$.

References:

I actually think currying is really cool:

$$(A \times B) \to C \; \simeq \; A \to (B \to C)$$

Though not strictly an identity, but an isomorphism.

When I met it for the first time it seemed to be a bit odd but it is so convenient and neat. At least in programming.

$$71 = \sqrt{7! + 1}.$$

Besides the amusement of reusing the decimal digits $7$ and $1$, this is conjectured to be the last solution of $n!+1 = x^2$ in integers. ($n=4$ and $n=5$ also work.) Even finiteness of the set of solutions is not known except using the ABC conjecture.

The Cayley-Hamilton theorem:

If $A \in \mathbb{R}^{n \times n}$ and $I_{n} \in \mathbb{R}^{n \times n}$ is the identity matrix, then the characteristic polynomial of $A$ is $p(\lambda) = \det(\lambda I_n - A)$. Then the Cayley Hamilton theorem can be obtained by "substituting" $\lambda = A$, since $$p(A) = \det(AI_n-A) = \det(0-0) = 0$$

We have by block partition rule for determinant $$\det \left[ \begin{array}{cc} U & R \\ L & D \end{array} \right] = \det U\cdot \det ( D-LU^{-1}R)$$ But if $U,R,L$ and $D$ commute we have that $$\det \left[ \begin{array}{cc} U & R \\ L & D \end{array} \right] = \det (UD-LR)$$

• Actually, only U and L need to commute. – Dirk Aug 22 '18 at 14:08

$$\frac{1}{998901}=0.000001002003004005006...997999000001...$$

• Similar results for $1/((9...9)^2)$, and any further analysis will explain why :-) – Mark Hurd Jul 12 '12 at 4:03
• Indeed, I saw it explained here initially :-) – preferred_anon Jul 14 '12 at 20:19
• 1/98.99 = 0.010102030508132134... – Empy2 Sep 26 '13 at 14:41

\begin{eqnarray} \zeta(0) = \sum_{n \geq 1} 1 = -\frac{1}{2} \end{eqnarray}

• Actually, this can be made rigorous by noting that $$\zeta(z)=\lim_{n\to\infty}\left(\sum_{k=1}^nk^{-z}-\frac{1}{1-z}n^{1-z}-\frac12n^{-z}\right)$$ for $\mathrm{Re}(z)>-1$. – robjohn Jun 21 '12 at 0:52

$$\frac{1}{2}=\frac{\frac{1}{2}}{\frac{1}{2}+\frac{\frac{1}{2}}{\frac{1}{2}+\frac{\frac{1}{2}}{\frac{1}{2}+\frac{\frac{1}{2}}{\frac{1}{2}+\frac{\frac{1}{2}}{\frac{1}{2}+\frac{\frac{1}{2}}{\frac{1}{2}+\cdots}}}}}}$$

and more generally we have $$\frac{1}{n+1}=\frac{\frac{1}{n(n+1)}}{\frac{1}{n(n+1)}+\frac{\frac{1}{n(n+1)}}{\frac{1}{n(n+1)}+\frac{\frac{1}{n(n+1)}}{\frac{1}{n(n+1)}+\frac{\frac{1}{n(n+1)}}{\frac{1}{n(n+1)}+\frac{\frac{1}{n(n+1)}}{\frac{1}{n(n+1)}+\frac{\frac{1}{n(n+1)}}{\frac{1}{n(n+1)}+\ddots}}}}}}$$

Heres a interesting one again
$3435=3^3+4^4+3^3+5^5%$

$(x-a)(x-b)(x-c)\ldots(x-z) = 0$

• I don't get it? – Akiva Weinberger Aug 17 '15 at 19:52
• @columbus8myhw $(x-a)(x-b)(x-c)\ldots (x-w){\color{red}{(x-x)}}(x-y)(x-z)=0$ – Surb Aug 23 '15 at 16:00

\begin{eqnarray} \sum_{k = 0}^{\lfloor q - q/p) \rfloor} \left \lfloor \frac{p(q - k)}{q} \right \rfloor = \sum_{k = 1}^{q} \left \lfloor \frac{kp}{q} \right \rfloor \end{eqnarray}

• I don't see the 'punch' here. Isn't that just reversing the order of summation and truncating some zeros? – Ofir Jan 13 '13 at 0:10

\begin{align}\frac{64}{16}&=\frac{6\!\!/\,4}{16\!\!/}\\&=\frac41\\&=4\end{align}

For more examples of these weird fractions, see "How Weird Are Weird Fractions?", Ryan Stuffelbeam, The College Mathematics Journal, Vol. 44, No. 3 (May 2013), pp. 202-209.

• – Nate Eldredge Nov 15 '13 at 16:59
• – Mike Pierce Oct 24 '16 at 21:12

$\lnot$(A$\land$B)=($\lnot$A$\lor$$\lnotB) and \lnot(A\lorB)=(\lnotA\land$$\lnot$B), because they mean that negation is an "equal form".

$$2592=2^59^2$$ Found this in one of Dudeney's puzzle books

$$\sin \theta \cdot \sin \bigl(60^\circ - \theta \bigr) \cdot \sin \bigl(60^\circ + \theta \bigr) = \frac{1}{4} \sin 3\theta$$

$$\cos \theta \cdot \cos \bigl(60^\circ - \theta \bigr) \cdot \cos \bigl(60^\circ + \theta \bigr) = \frac{1}{4} \cos 3\theta$$

$$\tan \theta \cdot \tan \bigl(60^\circ - \theta \bigr) \cdot \tan \bigl(60^\circ + \theta \bigr) = \tan 3\theta$$

• Not much idea what you want me to understand ? :) – Quixotic Nov 4 '10 at 9:38
• I just wanted to mention that your first identity is equivalent to the case $n=3$ of the formula for $\sin nx$ given there. (Just replace $\sin(60^{\circ}-\theta)$ by $\sin(\theta+120^{\circ})$.) – Hans Lundmark Nov 4 '10 at 9:56
• considering your first two identities the thirth should be $$\tan \theta \cdot \tan \bigl(60 - \theta \bigr) \cdot \tan \bigl(60 + \theta \bigr) = \tan 3\theta$$ – Neves Mar 6 '11 at 16:08

$$\sum_{n=1}^{+\infty}\frac{\mu(n)}{n}=1-\frac12-\frac13-\frac15+\frac16-\frac17+\frac1{10}-\frac1{11}-\frac1{13}+\frac1{14}+\frac1{15}-\cdots=0$$ This relation was discovered by Euler in 1748 (before Riemann's studies on the $\zeta$ function as a complex variable function, from which this relation becomes much more easier!).

Then one of the most impressive formulas is the functional equation for the $\zeta$ function, in its asimmetric form: it highlights a very very deep and smart connection between the $\Gamma$ and the $\zeta$: $$\pi^{\frac s2}\Gamma\left(\frac s2\right)\zeta(s)= \pi^{\frac{1-s}2}\Gamma\left(\frac{1-s}2\right)\zeta(1-s)\;\;\;\forall s\in\mathbb C\;.$$

Moreover no one seems to have wrote the Basel problem (Euler, 1735): $$\sum_{n=1}^{+\infty}\frac1{n^2}=\frac{\pi^2}{6}\;\;.$$

$$27\cdot56=2\cdot756,$$ $$277\cdot756=27\cdot7756,$$ $$2777\cdot7756=277\cdot77756,$$ and so on.

• How does it work? – Maxwell Oct 2 '15 at 10:45

$$\frac{\pi}{4}=\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}\arctan\frac{1}{f_{2n+1}},$$ where $f_{2n+1}$ there are fibonacci numbers, $n=1,2,...$

$$\lim_{\omega\to\infty}3=8$$ The "proof" is by rotation through $\pi/2$. More of a joke than an identity, I suppose.

• Remind me of this: http://xkcd.com/184/ – alex.jordan Nov 3 '13 at 17:31
• Or maybe the "proof" is through taking the closure? – alex.jordan Dec 15 '13 at 5:57

$\tan^{-1}(1)+\tan^{-1}(2)+\tan^{-1}(3) = \pi$ (using the principal value), but if you blindly use the addition formula $\tan^{-1}(x) + \tan^{-1}(y) = \tan^{-1}\dfrac{x+y}{1-x y}$ twice, you get zero:

$\tan^{-1}(1) + \tan^{-1}(2) = \tan^{-1}\dfrac{1+2}{1-1*2} =\tan^{-1}(-3)$; $\tan^{-1}(1) + \tan^{-1}(2) + \tan^{-1}(3) =\tan^{-1}(-3) + \tan^{-1}(3) =\tan^{-1}\dfrac{-3+3}{1-(-3)(3)} = 0$.

For all $n\in\mathbb{N}$ and $n\neq1$ $$\prod_{k=1}^{n-1}2\sin\frac{k \pi}{n} = n$$

For some reason, the proof involves complex numbers and polynomials.

Here's one clever trigonometric identity that impressed me in high-school days. Add $\sin \alpha$, to both the numerator and the denominator of $\sqrt{\frac{1-\cos \alpha}{1 + \cos \alpha}}$ and get rid of the square root and nothing changes. In other words:

$$\frac{1 - \cos \alpha + \sin \alpha}{1 + \cos \alpha + \sin \alpha} = \sqrt{\frac{1-\cos \alpha}{1 + \cos \alpha}}$$

If you take a closer look you'll notice that the RHS is the formula for tangent of a half-angle. Actually if you want to prove those, nothing but the addition formulas are required.

\begin{align} E &= \sqrt{\left(pc\right)^{2} + \left(mc^{2}\right)^{2}} = mc^{2} + \left[\sqrt{\left(pc\right)^{2} + \left(mc^{2}\right)^{2}} - mc^{2}\right] \\[3mm]&= mc^{2} + {\left(pc\right)^{2} \over \sqrt{\left(pc\right)^{2} + \left(mc^{2}\right)^{2}} + mc^{2}} = mc^{2} + {p^{2}/2m \over 1 + {\sqrt{\left(pc\right)^{2} + \left(mc^{2}\right)^{2}} - mc^{2} \over 2mc^{2}}} \\[3mm]&= mc^{2} + {p^{2}/2m \over 1 + {p^{2}/2m \over \sqrt{\left(pc\right)^{2} + \left(mc^{2}\right)^{2}} + mc^{2}}} = mc^{2} + {p^{2}/2m \over 1 + {p^{2}/2m \over 1 + {p^{2}/2m \over \sqrt{\left(pc\right)^{2} + \left(mc^{2}\right)^{2}} - mc^{2}}}} \end{align}

$$\begin{array}{rcrcl} \vdots & \vdots & \vdots & \vdots & \vdots \\[1mm] \int{1 \over x^{3}}\,{\rm d}x & = & -\,{1 \over 2}\,{1 \over x^{2}} & \sim & x^{\color{#ff0000}{\large\bf -2}} \\[1mm] \int{1 \over x^{2}}\,{\rm d}x & = & -\,{1 \over x} & \sim & x^{\color{#ff0000}{\large\bf -1}} \\[1mm] \int{1 \over x}\,{\rm d}x & = & \ln\left(x\right) & \sim & x^{\color{#0000ff}{\LARGE\bf 0}} \color{#0000ff}{\LARGE\quad ?} \\[1mm] \int x^{0}\,{\rm d}x & = & x^{1} & \sim & x^{\color{#ff0000}{\large\bf 1}} \\[1mm] \int x\,{\rm d}x & = & {1 \over 2}\,x^{2} & \sim & x^{\color{#ff0000}{\large\bf 2}} \\[1mm] \vdots & \vdots & \vdots & \vdots & \vdots \end{array}$$

• $\ln(x)$ converges slowly enough, so indeed $\ln(x) \sim 1$ might not be completely stupid :p – Thomas Sep 28 '13 at 8:31
• Hmm, considering that logarithms get at the exponent, and $x$ has a constant exponent ... Since $\ln\left(x^a\right)=a\ln\left(x\right)$ (the log of an expression equals the exponent times the log of the base), then $\ln\left(x^1\right)=1\ln\left(x\right)=x^0\ln\left(x\right)$ might be saying something to the effect that it's more important that your exponent is a constant, than the fact that the log of your base $\ln\left(x\right)$ is growing slowly. – Travis Bemrose Sep 28 '13 at 10:11
• @Travis Wow, nice one! But I think you took my comment too seriously. – Thomas Sep 28 '13 at 13:13
• The mystery, perhaps, lies in the constant of integration. All of the other integrals are evaluated from 0 to x, while the $\dfrac1x$ one is evaluated from 1 to x. (Note, by the way, that $\displaystyle\ln x=\lim_{t\to0}\frac{x^t-1}t$, which perhaps fits the pattern better.) – Akiva Weinberger Aug 28 '14 at 4:08

$$\frac{\pi}{2}=1+2\sum_{k=1}^{\infty}\frac{\eta(2k)}{2^{2k}}$$ $$\frac{\pi}{3}=1+2\sum_{k=1}^{\infty}\frac{\eta(2k)}{6^{2k}}$$ where $\eta(n)=\sum_{k=1}^{\infty}\frac{(-1)^{k+1}}{k^{n}}$

Voronoi summation formula:

$\sum \limits_{n=1}^{\infty}d(n)(\frac{x}{n})^{1/2}\{Y_1(4\pi \sqrt{nx})+\frac{2}{\pi}K_1(4\pi \sqrt{nx})\}+x \log x +(2 \gamma-1)x +\frac{1}{4}=\sum \limits _{n\leq x}'d(n)$

I have another one, but I'm quite unwilling to post this here because it's MINE, I haven't found it anywhere, so don't steal this.

Let us take the four most important mathematical constants: The Euler number $e$, the Aurea Golden Ratio $\phi$, the Euler-Mascheroni constant $\gamma$ and finally $\pi$. Well we can see easily that

$$e\cdot\gamma\cdot\pi\cdot\phi \approx e + \gamma + \pi + \phi$$

• I wouldn't take credit for this dude – user285523 Nov 11 '15 at 2:48

$\textbf{Claim:}\quad$$\frac{\sin x}{n}=6$$ for all$n,x$($n\neq 0$).$\textit{Proof:}\quad$$\frac{\sin x}{n}=\frac{\dfrac{1}{n}\cdot\sin x}{\dfrac{1}{n}\cdot n}=\frac{\operatorname{si}x}{1}=\text{six}.\quad\blacksquare$$

• how do you obtain $\dfrac{six}{1}$ ? – ASB Jan 29 '15 at 13:49
• @Tgymasb Denominator: $1/n\cdot n=1$. Numerator: $1/\textbf{n}\cdot\operatorname{si}\!\textbf{n}\, x=\operatorname{si}x$. – triple_sec Jan 29 '15 at 14:00