Eilenberg–Mazur swindle (nonfiction): Difference between revisions
(Created page with "In mathematics, the '''Eilenberg–Mazur swindle''', named after Samuel Eilenberg and Barry Mazur (nonfiction)...") |
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 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). | 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: | The Eilenberg–Mazur swindle is similar to the following well known joke "proof" that 1 = 0: |
Revision as of 06:37, 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.