Let me give a more detailed discussion about my question:
p4wn3r wrote:
Find the error in my proof that 0 = 1.
Let
Use integration by parts to find
Now, with the change of variable x=uL, evaluate it like:
Therefore, 0 = 1.
The error is in the next-to-last equals sign. As Denial140 pointed out, it's an exchange of limits that was not justified.
Formally, we have a family of functions f_L(x) on [0,1]. We know that lim f_L(x) = 0 on [0,1] as L goes to infinity.
However, the left hand side of the equals sign is lim_{L to inf} integral of f_L(x), and the right hand side is the integral of lim_{L to inf} f_L(x).
Is the limit of the integral the same as the integral of the limit? In most cases, yes, but we'd better check the conditions here. The result that's used a lot for these checks is the dominated convergence theorem.
Essentially, what the theorem says is: if all the functions f_L(x) on [0,1] are bounded above by an integrable function g(x) on [0,1], which integrates to a finite number, then yes, the two limits are the same. That's exactly where the problem is, here. It turns out you can calculate the envelope of this family of functions. I won't show the derivation here (it could be another question :D), but it's y = 4/(x*e²).
Let's see it on desmos:
It should be clear why the curve converges to zero at every point, but the limit of the integral does not go to zero. As L grows, the function dies off at most of the interval, but becomes concentrated at a peak that gets closer and closer to zero, and contains the entire integral. Also, since the integral of the envelope function y = 4/(x*e²) is not finite on [0,1], we cannot apply the dominated convergence theorem. Therefore, the exchange of limits is not valid, and it won't surprise many people that 0 is different than 1 :)
Here's an algebra one: Let ϕ be the Golden Ratio (1 + √5)/2. Let F(n) be the n-th Fibonacci number: F(1) = F(2) = 1 and F(n) = F(n - 1) + F(n - 2) for integers n >= 3. Prove that F(n) = (1/ϕn - 1) Σnk = 1 (-1)n - k ϕ2(k - 1) for all integers n >= 1.
A few weeks ago, a couple irl friends introduced me to a weekday date guessing game that one of them developed: https://gilliver.co.uk/weekday-trainer
It's a very simple game: you get given a random date of current year, and have to select what day of the week it is. Get 10 correct in a row, and your average time is recorded.
There are some interesting methods to determine what weekday a given day falls on, called the Doomsday algorithm.
After playing it on and off for a week or so on my phone while on the train or on lunch break (would definitely recommend over doomscrolling), I got a PB of 1.84 s average guess time.
Curious to see if anyone else can get a good time on this? :o
http://www.youtube.com/Noxxa
<dwangoAC> This is a TAS (...). Not suitable for all audiences. May cause undesirable side-effects. May contain emulator abuse. Emulator may be abusive. This product contains glitches known to the state of California to cause egg defects.
<Masterjun> I'm just a guy arranging bits in a sequence which could potentially amuse other people looking at these bits
<adelikat> In Oregon Trail, I sacrificed my own family to save time. In Star trek, I killed helpless comrades in escape pods to save time. Here, I kill my allies to save time. I think I need help.
Nice, incidentally I learned about the doomsday algorithm thing a few days ago. So I refreshed myself on it, and got an average time of 12s. But I'm more happy that I got them all right! :D
I probably wouldn't have tried if one had to guess specific years, too. That seems more difficult heh.
Warning: Might glitch to creditsI will finish this ACE soon as possible
(or will I?)