My calc professor once taught us a fallacious proof. I'm hoping someone here can help me remember it.
Here's what I know about it:
- The end result was some variation of 0=1 or 1=2.
- It involved (indefinite?) integrals.
- It was simple enough for Calc II students to grasp.
- The (primary?) fallacy was that the arbitrary constants (+ C) were omitted after integration.
I'm not certain, but I have a strong hunch it involved a basic trigonometric identity.
Answer
It's probably the classic
∫sin2xdx=∫2sinxcosxdx
Doing a u=sinx substitution "gives" ∫2udu=u2=sin2x
Alternatively, using v=cosx "gives" ∫−2vdv=−v2=−cos2x
Since the solutions must be equal, we have
sin2x=−cos2x→sin2x+cos2x=0→1=0
As you note, the fallacy here is the failure to include "+ constant" to the indefinite integrals.
Note that there's also the substitution w=2x, which "gives"
∫12sinwdw=−12cosw=−12cos2x=−12(2cos2x−1)=−cos2x+12=−12(1−2sin2x)=−sin2x−12
that leads to the same kind of apparent contradiction when compared to the other integrals.
No comments:
Post a Comment