# Solve it Sundays: An Exercise in Logic Hey everyone. This week’s riddle is a bit easier for you, but it’ll for sure make you think.

The English mathemitician and author Lewis Caroll devised a series of excellent logical problems designed to illustrate and test deductive reasoning. Several statements are given below. You may assume — for the duration of this problem — that they are absolutely true in all particulars. From that assumption, you should be able to provide an answer to the question that follows.

I dislike things that cannot be put to use as a bridge.

Sunset clouds are unable to bear my weight.

The only subjects I enjoy poems about are things which I would welcome as a gift.

Anything which can be used as a bridge is able to bear my weight.

I would not accept a gift of a thing I disliked.

Would I enjoy a poem about sunset clouds?

Advertisements

# Solve it Sundays: Absolutely Nothing We are back for another Solve it Sundays, and this one I didn’t find too tricky. Good luck! and as always, the answers are in the comments.

It is tempting, soothing even, to think of mathematics as a perfect edifice of logic and order. The truth however is that it is an art as well as a science, and it has places where absolutism breaks down.

For this example, we will show that 0 = 1. Firstly, however, I should point out that when adding a series of numbers, the associative law says that you may bracket the sums as you like without any effect.

1+2+3 = 1+ (2+3)= (1+2) + 3.

So, with that established, consider adding an infinite number of zeroes. No matter how much nothing you gather, you will still always have nothing.

0 = 0+0+0+0+0+…

Since 1-1 = 0, you can replace each zero in your sum, like so:

0 = (1-1)+(1-1)+(1-1)+(1-1)+(1-1)+…

From the associative law, you may arrange the brackets in your sum as you see fit. Which means:

0 = 1+(-1+1)+(-1+1)+(-1+1)+(-1+1)+(-1+1)+…

However, as established, (-1+1) = 0, so this sequence can also be stated as:

0 = 1+0+0+0+0+0+…

Or, for simplicities sake:

# 0 = 1

Something is clearly incorrect. But what?