Eilenberg–Mazur swindle (nonfiction): Difference between revisions

From Gnomon Chronicles
Jump to navigation Jump to search
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 1: Line 1:
In [[Mathematics (nonfiction)|mathematics]], the '''Eilenberg–Mazur swindle''', named after [[Samuel Eilenberg (nonfiction)|Samuel Eilenberg]] and [[Barry Mazur (nonfiction)|Barry Mazur]], is a method of proof that involves paradoxical properties of infinite sums.  
In [[Mathematics (nonfiction)|mathematics]], the '''Eilenberg–Mazur swindle''', named after [[Samuel Eilenberg (nonfiction)|Samuel Eilenberg]] and [[Barry Mazur (nonfiction)|Barry Mazur]], is a method of proof that involves paradoxical properties of infinite sums.  


In geometric topology it was introduced by Mazur (1959, 1961) and is often called the '''Mazur swindle'''.  
In [[Geometric topology (nonfiction)|geometric topology]] it was introduced by [[Barry Mazur (nonfiction)|Mazur]] (1959, 1961) and is often called the '''Mazur swindle'''.  


In algebra it was introduced by Samuel Eilenberg and is known as the '''Eilenberg swindle''' or '''Eilenberg telescope''' (see telescoping sum).
In algebra it was introduced by [[Samuel Eilenberg (nonfiction)|Samuel Eilenberg]] and is known as the '''Eilenberg swindle''' or '''Eilenberg telescope''' (see [[Telescoping series (nonfiction)|telescoping sum]]).


The Eilenberg–Mazur swindle is similar to the following well known joke "proof" that 1 = 0:
The Eilenberg–Mazur swindle is similar to the following well known joke "proof" that 1 = 0:


1 = 1 + (−1 + 1) + (−1 + 1) + ... = 1 − 1 + 1 − 1 + ... = (1 − 1) + (1 − 1) + ... = 0
1 = 1 + (−1 + 1) + (−1 + 1) + ... = 1 − 1 + 1 − 1 + ... = (1 − 1) + (1 − 1) + ... = 0
This "proof" is not valid as a claim about real numbers because Grandi's series 1 − 1 + 1 − 1 + ... does not converge, but the analogous argument can be used in some contexts where there is some sort of "addition" defined on some objects for which infinite sums do make sense, to show that if A + B = 0 then A = B = 0.
This "proof" is not valid as a claim about real numbers because [[Grandi's series (nonfiction)|Grandi's series]] 1 − 1 + 1 − 1 + ... does not converge, but the analogous argument can be used in some contexts where there is some sort of "addition" defined on some objects for which infinite sums do make sense, to show that if A + B = 0 then A = B = 0.
 
== In the News ==
 
<gallery>
</gallery>
 
== Fiction cross-reference ==
 
* [[Crimes against mathematical constants]]
* [[Gnomon algorithm]]
* [[Gnomon Chronicles]]
* [[Mathematician]]
* [[Mathematics]]
 
== Nonfiction cross-reference ==
 
* [[Samuel Eilenberg (nonfiction)]]
* [[Geometric topology (nonfiction)]] - the study of manifolds and maps between them, particularly embeddings of one manifold into another.
* [[Mathematician (nonfiction)]]
* [[Mathematics (nonfiction)]]
* [[Barry Mazur (nonfiction)]]
* [[Telescoping series (nonfiction)]] - a [[Series (nonfiction)|series]] whose partial sums eventually only have a fixed number of terms after cancellation. The cancellation technique, with part of each term cancelling with part of the next term, is known as the method of differences.
 
External links:
 
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eilenberg%E2%80%93Mazur_swindle Eilenberg–Mazur swindle] @ Wikipedia
 
 
[[Category:Nonfiction (nonfiction)]]
[[Category:Mathematics (nonfiction)]]

Revision as of 06:50, 29 January 2020

In mathematics, the Eilenberg–Mazur swindle, named after Samuel Eilenberg and Barry Mazur, is a method of proof that involves paradoxical properties of infinite sums.

In geometric topology it was introduced by Mazur (1959, 1961) and is often called the Mazur swindle.

In algebra it was introduced by Samuel Eilenberg and is known as the Eilenberg swindle or Eilenberg telescope (see telescoping sum).

The Eilenberg–Mazur swindle is similar to the following well known joke "proof" that 1 = 0:

1 = 1 + (−1 + 1) + (−1 + 1) + ... = 1 − 1 + 1 − 1 + ... = (1 − 1) + (1 − 1) + ... = 0 This "proof" is not valid as a claim about real numbers because Grandi's series 1 − 1 + 1 − 1 + ... does not converge, but the analogous argument can be used in some contexts where there is some sort of "addition" defined on some objects for which infinite sums do make sense, to show that if A + B = 0 then A = B = 0.

In the News

Fiction cross-reference

Nonfiction cross-reference

External links: