Problems

Theorem: All people have the same eye color.

"Proof" by induction: This is clearly true for one person.

Now, assume we have a finite set of people, denote them as \(a_1,\, a_2,\, ...,\,a_n\), and the inductive hypothesis is true for all smaller sets. Then if we leave aside the person \(a_1\), everyone else \(a_2,\, a_3,\,...,\,a_n\) has the same color of eyes and if we leave aside \(a_n\), then all \(a_1,\, a_2,\,a_3,...,\,a_{n-1}\) also have the same color of eyes. Thus any \(n\) people have the same color of eyes.
Find a mistake in this "proof".

Let’s prove that \(1\) is the largest natural number.
Let \(n\) be the largest natural number. Then, \(n^2\), being a natural number, is less than or equal to \(n\). Therefore \(n^2-n=n(n-1)\leq 0\). Hence, \(0\leq n\leq 1\). Therefore \(n=1\).

Theorem: If we mark \(n\) points on a circle and connect each point to every other point by a straight line, the lines divide the interior of the circle is into is \(2n-1\) regions.
"Proof": First, let’s have a look at the smallest natural numbers.

• When \(n=1\) there is one region (the whole disc).

• When \(n=2\) there are two regions (two half-discs).

• When \(n=3\) there are \(4\) regions (three lune-like regions and one triangle in the middle).

• When \(n=4\) there are \(8\) regions, and if you’re still not convinced then try \(n=5\) and you’ll find \(16\) regions if you count carefully.

Our proof in general will be by induction on \(n\). Assuming the theorem is true for \(n\) points, consider a circle with \(n+1\) points on it. Connecting \(n\) of them together in pairs produces \(2n-1\) regions in the disc, and then connecting the remaining point to all the others will divide the previous regions into two parts, thereby giving us \(2\times (2n-1)=2n\) regions.

Let’s "prove" that the number \(1\) is a multiple of \(3\). We will use the symbol \(\equiv\) to denote "congruent modulo \(3\)". Thus, what we need to prove is that \(1\equiv 0\) modulo \(3\). Let’s see: \(1\equiv 4\) modulo \(3\) means that \(2^1\equiv 2^4\) modulo \(3\), thus \(2\equiv 16\) modulo \(3\), however \(16\) gives the remainder \(1\) after division by \(3\), thus we get \(2\equiv 1\) modulo \(3\), next \(2-1\equiv 1-1\) modulo \(3\), and thus \(1\equiv 0\) modulo \(3\). Which means that \(1\) is divisible by \(3\).

Recall that \((n+1)^2=n^2+2n+1\) and after expansion we get \((n+1)^2-(2n+1)=n^2\). Subtract \(n(2n+1)\) from both sides \((n+1)^2-(2n+1)-n(2n+1)=n^2-n(2n+1)\) and rewrite it as \((n+1)^2-(n+1)(2n+1)=n^2-n(2n+1)\).
Now we add \(\frac{(2n+1)^2}{4}\) to both sides: \((n+1)^2-(n+1)(2n+1)+\frac{(2n+1)^2}{4}=n^2-n(2n+1)+\frac{(2n+1)^2}{4}\).
Factor both sides into square: \(((n+1)-\frac{2n+1}{2})^2=(n-\frac{2n+1}{2})^2\).
Now take the square root: \((n+1)-\frac{2n+1}{2}=n-\frac{2n+1}{2}\).
Add \(\frac{2n+1}{2}\) to both sides and we get \(n+1=n\) which is equivalent to \(1=0\).

Look at the following diagram, depicting how to get an extra cell by reshaping triangle.

Can you find a mistake? Certainly the triangles have different area, so we cannot obtain one from the other one by reshaping.

This problem is often called "The infinite chocolate bar". Depicted below is a way to get one more piece of chocolate from the \(5\times 6\) chocolate bar. Do you see where is it wrong?

Consider the following "proof" that any triangle is equilateral: Given a triangle \(ABC\), we first prove that \(AB = AC\). First let’s draw the bisector of the angle \(\angle A\). Now draw the perpendicular bisector of segment \(BC\), denote by \(D\) the middle of \(BC\) and by \(O\) the intersection of these lines. See the diagram

Draw the lines \(OR\) perpendicular to \(AB\) and \(OQ\) perpendicular to \(AC\). Draw lines \(OB\) and \(OC\). Then the triangles, \(RAO\) and \(QAO\) are equal, since we have equal angles \(\angle ORA = \angle OQA = 90°,\) and \(\angle RAO = \angle QAO,\) and the common side \(AO\). On the other hand the triangles \(ROB\) and \(QOC\) are also equal since the angles \(\angle BRO = \angle CQO = 90°\), the hypotenuses \(BO = OC\) the legs \(RO = OQ\). Thus, \(AR = AQ,\) \(RB = QC,\) and \(AB = AR + RB = AQ + QC = AC.\) Q.E.D.

As a corollary, one can show that all the triangles are equilateral, by showing that \(AB = BC\) in the same way.

Let’s prove the following statement: every graph without isolated vertices is connected.
Proof We use the induction on the number of vertices. Clearly the statement is true for graphs with \(2\) vertices. Now, assume we have proven the statement for graphs with up to \(n\) vertices.
Take a graph with \(n\) vertices by induction hypothesis it must be connected. Let’s add a non-isolated vertex to it. As this vertex is not isolated, it is connected to one of the other \(n\) vertices. But then the whole graph of \(n+1\) vertices is connected!

Let’s compute the infinite sum: \[1+2 + 4 + 8 + 16 + ... + 2^n + ... = c\] Observe that \(1+2+4+8+... = 1 + 2(1+2+4+8+16+...)\), namely \(c = 1+2c\), then it follows that \[c = 1+2+4+8+... = -1.\]