1 Is The Largest Positive Integer
Theorem. Among all positive integers, the integer 1 is the largest.
| Proof | |
| Step 1. | Take any integer . |
| Step 2. | Since , it is not the largest positive integer. |
| Step 3. | Therefore, 1 is the largest integer. |
What is the error (if any) in the above proof?
Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth. - Sherlock Holmes
This section requires Javascript.
You are seeing this because something didn't load right. We suggest you, (a) try
refreshing the page, (b) enabling javascript if it is disabled on your browser and,
finally, (c)
loading the
non-javascript version of this page
. We're sorry about the hassle.
1 solution
The proof "works" by eliminating all possibilities for the largest positive integer other than n = 1 , and then claiming that this remaining choice must hence be the largest positive integer.
However, what is has shown is just that "If there is a largest positive integer, then the only possibility for it (according to this proof) is n = 1 ". As such, because there isn't a "largest positive integer", hence the result of "it is n = 1 " does not follow.
Sherlock's quote applies to the context of his private investigation cases, where he knows that the scenario has existed and is thus looking for a reason to explain its existence. If so, by eliminating all but one possibility, we know that whatever remains must be the truth. It assumes existence through the real-world context that is implicit in his quote. A common scenario that happens is for people to assume that Brilliant problems are well-phrased, and thus there is a correct answer, so they can proceed by elimination.
In truth, this misconception of "If I'm left with 1 answer, then that is correct" occurs especially in geometry problems. The OP takes the algebraic interpretation, sets up the algebraic equation and solves for a certain value. However, it is possible for the answer to result in a physically impossible scenario. E.g. requires negative length which isn't accounted for, makes a certain angle reflex and so the wrong value is used, etc. This is why I often stress "Can this be achieved?" when reviewing a solution for mathematical rigor.
Here is an example where the solution assumes that there is a unique answer, and so merely calculates a necessary condition that gives a unique potential answer. For completeness, it has to show that this potential answer indeed satisfies the given initial conditions.