Professional Documents
Culture Documents
RVCE
FALLACIES
It is possible for a valid argument to have false conclusion and for an invalid argument to have a true conclusion.
. Maxwell had more to say on what he called "fallacies" and "howlers": "The howler in mathematics is not easy to describe, but the term may be used to denote an error which leads innocently to a correct result. By contrast, the fallacy leads by guile to a wrong but plausible conclusion.
Howlers
A correct result obtained by an incorrect line of reasoning is an
example of a mathematical argument that is true but invalid. This is the case, for instance, in the calculation
Although the conclusion 16/64 = 1/4 is correct, there is a fallacious invalid cancellation in the middle step. Bogus proofs constructed to produce a correct result in spite of incorrect
The traditional way of presenting a mathematical fallacy is to give an invalid step of deduction mixed in with valid steps. Pseudaria, an ancient lost book of false proofs, is attributed to Euclid.
Mathematical fallacies exist in many branches of mathematics. In elementary algebra, typical examples may involve a step where division by zero is performed, where a root is incorrectly extracted or,
VARIABLE AMBIGUITY
The problem here is that x is not a true variable. It is actually a constant, so that its derivative should also be zero. Moral: Know your variables from your constants!
NEGATIVE ROOTS
NEGATIVE ROOTS
What went wrong? This is a tougher one! The problem is that for sqrt(x*y) to be equal to sqrt(x)*sqrt(y), one or both numbers must be positive. In this case, that wasn't true.
The mistake is that the rule ln(ex) = x is in general only valid for real x, not for complex x. The complex logarithm is actually multi-valued;
What's wrong with this? The step where (a-b) was eliminated was not mathematically logical, since (a-b)=0 and dividing by zero is not generally mathematically defined. Moral: Be careful with your algebra!
COMPLEX ROOTS
x2 + x + 1 = 0 x2 = -x -1 x=-1 - 1/x Substitute x into the initial equation x2 + (-1 - 1/x) + 1 = 0 x2 - 1/x = 0 x2=1/x x3 =1 x=1 Substitute this x into the initial equation 12 + 1 + 1 = 0 3=0 What went wrong?
COMPLEX ROOTS
The problem is that x3=1 really has three roots, and the one chosen, x=1, was an extraneous solution given the previous mathematical context.
Moral: Make sure your solution is a real mathematical and physical solution.
What is wrong ?
The error here is that the associative law cannot be applied freely to an infinite sum unless the sum is absolutely convergent (see also conditionally convergent). Here that sum is 1 1 + 1 1 + , a classic divergent series. In this particular argument, the second line gives the sequence of partial sums 0, 0, 0, ... (which converges to 0) while the third line gives the sequence of partial sums 1, 1, 1, ... (which converges to 1), so these expressions need not be equal. This can be seen as a counterexample to generalizing Fubini's theorem and Tonelli's theorem to infinite integrals (sums) over measurable functions taking negative values.
DIVERGENT SERIES
INDETERMINATE INTEGRALS
The error in this proof lies in an improper use of the integration by parts technique. Upon use of the formula, a constant, C, must be added to the right-hand side of the equation. This is due to the derivation of the integration by parts formula; the derivation involves the integration of an equation and so a constant must be added. In most uses of the integration by parts technique, this initial addition of C is ignored until the end when C is added a second time. However, in this case, the constant must be added immediately because the remaining two integrals cancel each other out. In other words, the second to last line is correct (1 added to any antiderivative of is still an antiderivative of ); but the last line is not. You cannot cancel because they are not necessarily equal. There are infinitely many antiderivatives of a function, all differing by a constant. In this case, the antiderivatives on both sides differ by 1. This problem can be avoided if we use definite integrals (i.e. use bounds). Then in the second to last line, 1 would be evaluated between some bounds, which would always evaluate to 1 1 = 0. The remaining definite integrals on both sides would indeed be equal.
Invalid proofs utilizing powers and roots are often of the following kind
The fallacy is that the rule is generally valid only if at least one of the two numbers x or y is positive, which is not the case here.
The error in each of these examples fundamentally lies in the fact that any equation of the form x2 = a2 has two solutions, provided a 0, x=+- a.
and it is essential to check which of these solutions is relevant to the problem at hand. In the above fallacy, the square root that allowed the second equation to be deduced from the first is valid only when cos x is positive. In particular, when x is set to , the second equation is rendered invalid.
EXTRANEOUS SOLUTIONS
In the forward direction, the argument merely shows that no x exists satisfying the given equation. If you work backward from x = 2, taking the cube root of both sides ignores the possible factors of which are non-principal cube roots of negative one. An equation altered by raising both sides to a power is a consequence, but not necessarily equivalent to, the original equation, so it may produce more solutions. This is indeed the case in this example, where the solution x = 2 is arrived at while it is clear that this is not a solution to the original equation. Also, every number has 3 cube roots, 2 complex and one either real or complex. Also the substitution of the first equation into the second to get the third would be begging the question when working backwards.
Thank You