Most of you shall be knowing about Euler's formula:
eiθ=cos(θ)+isin(θ)
If you put θ=τ (where τ is a unit of measuring angle if you don't know about it see this and this)
eiτ=cos(τ)+isin(τ)=1+i×0=1
⇒eiτ=1
Taking ln on both sides
ln(eiτ)=ln(1)
⇒iτln(e)=ln(1)
⇒iτ×1=ln(1)
As ln(1)=0
∴iτ=0
As i=0
∴τ=0
If you want you can further write
2π=0
⇒π=0
Now will you agree with the last statement? Doesn't this means Math also fails!
Note:
#Algebra
Easy Math Editor
This discussion board is a place to discuss our Daily Challenges and the math and science related to those challenges. Explanations are more than just a solution — they should explain the steps and thinking strategies that you used to obtain the solution. Comments should further the discussion of math and science.
When posting on Brilliant:
*italics*
or_italics_
**bold**
or__bold__
paragraph 1
paragraph 2
[example link](https://brilliant.org)
> This is a quote
\(
...\)
or\[
...\]
to ensure proper formatting.2 \times 3
2^{34}
a_{i-1}
\frac{2}{3}
\sqrt{2}
\sum_{i=1}^3
\sin \theta
\boxed{123}
Comments
The flaw is that in the complex plane, ez1=ez2⇒z1=z2. This is because eiθ=cosθ+isinθ. The sine and cosine functions each have a period of 2π, so eiθ=ei(θ+2π). This leads to the misleading conclusion that 0=2π.
Log in to reply
Now, that's the correct explanation!
Wow!
@Elijah L although an argunent of 2π is not allowed in argand plane ,but we can generalize by considering periodicity.
@Zakir Husain The problem starts when you forget about periodicity of trignometric functions and limits of argument of complex number.
Now,if we want to expand its range we should consider periodicity of trignometric function. e^{iθ}=e^{i2nπ+θ}
I know this question is not for me and neither i have mentioned to answer it.But,as a noob i have tried to figure out something.Please comment if you find any error.
Log in to reply
@Zakir Husain,please reply am i correct or not?
It is also an explanation same as that given by @Elijah L, but stated differently.
Log in to reply
Oh,i see but i am still confused that argument could be 2π or not.
Log in to reply
Log in to reply
@Chew-Seong Cheong, @Mahdi Raza , @Kumudesh Ghosh , @Alak Bhattacharya , @Vinayak Srivastava , @Aryan Sanghi , @Jeff Giff , @Marvin Kalngan
Log in to reply
@Brilliant Mathematics, I just encountered a bug where i did not get a notification for this mention.
@Zakir Husain, there is a small little typo in the second line as well. There should be a closed bracket instead of 0
@Zakir Husain, Is there a part 1 or 3 of "Math Also Fails"
Log in to reply
@Mahdi Raza- Math Also Fails! -1, No part 3 is posted yet
Log in to reply
Ok
I don't understand much of the proof, but in my opinion there has to be some problem in using −1 as I saw some video on Numberphile which says that some properties of numbers are not allowed for −1.
Log in to reply
@Vinayak Srivastava - I onlly used 2 properties:
The euler's identity
If ai=0 then a=0 because i=0
These are all applicable for i.
This mistake is very common, e×π is irrational proof
@Zakir Husain, I don't agree with the last statement at all. Also (not being rude, this is a good note, don't take it personally), I believe that the Math also Fails series is somewhat undermining mathematics in a way inexpressible. For example, if you're saying π=0, you're in effect, undermining international π day and all the people who have worked hard to help improve the value of π. So, I implore you, although this is a joke and I believe this is a good one, don't put a post that undermines people's work by, in effect, proving mathematics wrong (I check all new discussions every day - that's why I'm saying not to post a note that undermines people's work by, in effect, proving mathematics wrong). You can still post it, as long as it steers away from people's work (i.e. don't do e, number sequences that people found etc.) and my defensive opinion of people's hard work and mathematics and it's reputation...
Log in to reply
@Yajat Shamji - Mathematics demands proof. I had just used legal mathematical arguments, if you can find a flaw then find it!
Log in to reply
Flaw on 4th step...
Log in to reply
Log in to reply
ln(eir)=ln(1)→irln(e)=ln(1) is flawed.
Log in to reply
here for more details
It is a legal mathematical property of logarithm seeYo I think you're taking this too seriously. Of course it's not seriously questioning the statement that π=3.14.
The way I see it, it's not a problem at all. We all know that the proof is false, and it's a sort of entertaining mathematical challenge to find out where the error lies.
Log in to reply
Yeah exactly, the guy above can't seem to get it.