Saturday 29 December 2012

Magical Age Cards

Tell the age of people (beween 0 and 63) from the cards they pick.
Some traditional  magic age cards  forgo the numbers 61, 62 and 63  (so that only 29 or 30 numbers per card are required, which are printed in a  5 by 6  pattern,  with or without a star in the 30th position).  Full-range cards  (with 32 numbers printed on each card)  are more satisfying.  Here are those 6 cards: 

32  33  34  35
36  37  38  39
40  41  42  43
44  45  46  47
48  49  50  51
52  53  54  55
56  57  58  59
60  61  62  63
16  17  18  19
20  21  22  23
24  25  26  27
28  29  30  31
48  49  50  51
52  53  54  55
56  57  58  59
60  61  62  63
08  09  10  11
12  13  14  15
24  25  26  27
28  29  30  31
40  41  42  43
44  45  46  47
56  57  58  59
60  61  62  63
04  05  06  07
12  13  14  15
20  21  22  23
28  29  30  31
36  37  38  39
44  45  46  47
52  53  54  55
60  61  62  63
02  03  06  07
10  11  14  15
18  19  22  23
26  27  30  31
34  35  38  39
42  43  46  47
50  51  54  55
58  59  62  63
01  03  05  07
09  11  13  15
17  19  21  23
25  27  29  31
33  35  37  39
41  43  45  47
49  51  53  55
57  59  61  63


Effect :   A spectator thinks of a number (up to 63) and tells you on what cards it is.
You call the exact number!

Secret :   The  weight  of each card is the smallest number printed on it.  Any number is equal to the sum of the  weights  of the cards it appears on.  For example:
52   =   32 + 16 + 4

Magical Mind Reader - Multiples Of Nine

Pick a 2-digit number...
  • Add the two digits together.
  • Subtract that sum of digits from the original number.
  • Look up the symbol corresponding to the result in a special table. 
How can the  magician  predict what that symbol is? The trick will become boring  (or obvious)  if the same table is used repeatedly.  Thus, a new table must be provided each time.  Several online implementation do this quite effectively, with nice graphics.  Examples:
 
 Magic Gopher  (British Council)

How fast can you discover the  secret  which makes this work?   [ Answer ] 

Answer :

The difference between a number and the sum of its digits
is always divisible by 9. The same symbol appears at all positions that are multiples of 9.


 

Mysterious Magical Trick - 1089

Pick a 3-digit number where the first and last digits differ by 2 or more...

  • Consider the "reverse" number, obtained by reading it backwards.
  • Subtract the smaller of these two numbers from the larger one.
  • Add the result to its own reverse. 
 
Why is this always equal to 1089 ? 
 
This is one of the better tricks of its kind, because the effect of reversing the digits is not obvious to most people at first...  If the 3-digit number reads abc, it's equal to  100a+10b+c  and the second step gives the following result:

| (100a+10b+c) - (100c+10b+a) |     =     99 | a-c |

The quantity  | a-c |  is between 2 and 9, so the above is a 3-digit multiple of 99, namely: 198, 297, 396, 495, 594, 693, 792 or 891.  The middle digit is always 9, while the first and last digits of any such multiple add up to 9.  Thus, adding the thing and its reverse gives 909 plus twice 90, which is 1089, as advertised. 

Wednesday 11 July 2012

0^0 ( Zero Raised To The Zeroth Power ) Equals ?


What does 0^0 (zero raised to the zeroth power) equal?

                          0/0  =  ?  
         
           Here comes some ANSWERS from different talented students , few teachers and also from Mathematician .

Clever Student :

            I know it  ..........  !!


            x^{0} =  x^{1-1} = x^{1} x^{-1} = \frac{x}{x} = 1.
Now we just plug in x=0, and we see that zero to the zero is one!

Cleverer Student:

      No, you’re wrong! You’re not allowed to divide by zero, which you did in the last step. This is how to do it:
0^{x} = 0^{1+x-1} = 0^{1} \times 0^{x-1} = 0 \times 0^{x-1}0
which is true since anything times 0 is 0. That means that
0^{0} = 0.

Cleverest student :

That doesn’t work either, because if x=0 then
0^{x-1} is 0^{-1} = \frac{1}{0}
so your third step also involves dividing by zero which isn’t allowed! Instead, we can think about the function x^{x} and see what happens as x>0 gets small. We have:
\lim_{x \to 0^{+}} x^{x}  = \lim_{x \to 0^{+}} \exp(\log(x^{x}))
\lim_{x \to 0^{+}} \exp(x \log(x))
\exp( \lim_{x \to 0^{+} } x \log(x) )
\exp( \lim_{x \to 0^{+} } \frac{\log(x)}{ x^{-1} } )
\exp( \lim_{x \to 0^{+} } \frac{ \frac{d}{dx} \log(x) }{ \frac{d}{dx} x^{-1} } )
\exp( \lim_{x \to 0^{+} } \frac{x^{-1}}{- x^{-2}} )
\exp( \lim_{x \to 0^{+} } -x )
\exp( 0)
1
So, since  \lim_{x \to 0^{+}} x^{x}  = 1, that means that 0^{0} = 1.

High School Teacher:

Showing that x^{x} approaches 1 as the positive value x gets arbitrarily close to zero does not prove that 0^{0} = 1. The variable x having a value close to zero is different than it having a value of exactly zero. It turns out that 0^{0} is undefined. 0^{0} does not have a value.

Calculus Teacher:

For all x>0, we have
0^{x} = 0.
Hence,
\lim_{x \to 0^{+}} 0^{x} = 0
That is, as x gets arbitrarily close to 0 (but remains positive), 0^{x} stays at 0.
On the other hand, for real numbers y such that y \ne 0, we have that
y^{0} = 1.
Hence,
\lim_{y \to 0} y^{0} = 1
That is, as y gets arbitrarily close to 0y^{0} stays at 1.
Therefore, we see that the function f(x,y) = y^{x} has a discontinuity at the point (x,y) = (0,0). In particular, when we approach (0,0) along the line with x=0 we get
\lim_{y \to 0} f(0,y) = 1
but when we approach (0,0) along the line segment with y=0 and x>0 we get
\lim_{x \to 0^{+}} f(x,0) = 0.
Therefore, the value of \lim_{(x,y) \to (0,0)} y^{x}  is going to depend on the direction that we take the limit. This means that there is no way to define 0^{0} that will make the function y^{x} continuous at the point (x,y) = (0,0).

Mathematician: 
                          Zero raised to the zero power is one. Why? Because mathematicians said so. No really, it’s true.

Let’s consider the problem of defining the function f(x,y) = y^x for positive integers y and x. There are a number of definitions that all give identical results. For example, one idea is to use for our definition:
y^x := 1 \times y \times y \cdots \times y
where the y is repeated x times. In that case, when x is one, the y is repeated just one time, so we get
y^{x} = 1 \times y.
However, this definition extends quite naturally from the positive integers to the non-negative integers, so that when x is zero, y is repeated zero times, giving
y^{0} = 1
which holds for any y. Hence, when y is zero, we have
0^0 = 1.
Look, we’ve just proved that 0^0 = 1! But this is only for one possible definition of y^x. What if we used another definition? For example, suppose that we decide to define y^x as
y^x := \lim_{z \to x^{+}} y^{z}.
In words, that means that the value of y^x is whatever y^z approaches as the real number z gets smaller and smaller approaching the value x arbitrarily closely.
[Clarification: a reader asked how it is possible that we can use y^z in our definition of y^x, which seems to be recursive. The reason it is okay is because we are working here only with z>0, and everyone agrees about what y^z equals in this case. Essentially, we are using the known cases to construct a function that has a value for the more difficult x=0 and y=0 case.]
Interestingly, using this definition, we would have
0^0 = \lim_{x \to 0^{+}} 0^{x} = \lim_{x \to 0^{+}} 0 = 0
Hence, we would find that 0^0 = 0 rather than 0^0 = 1. Granted, this definition we’ve just used feels rather unnatural, but it does agree with the common sense notion of what y^xmeans for all positive real numbers x and y, and it does preserve continuity of the function as we approach x=0 and y=0 along a certain line.
So which of these two definitions (if either of them) is right? What is 0^0 really? Well, for x>0 and y>0 we know what we mean by y^x. But when x=0 and y=0, the formula doesn’t have an obvious meaning. The value of y^x is going to depend on our preferred choice of definition for what we mean by that statement, and our intuition about what y^x means for positive values is not enough to conclude what it means for zero values.
But if this is the case, then how can mathematicians claim that 0^0=1? Well, merely because it is useful to do so. Some very important formulas become less elegant to write down if we instead use 0^0=0 or if we say that 0^0 is undefined. For example, consider thebinomial theorem, which says that:
(a+b)^x = \sum_{k=0}^{\infty} \binom{x}{k} a^k b^{x-k}

where \binom{x}{k} means the binomial coefficients.
Now, setting a=0 on both sides and assuming b \ne 0 we get
b^x
(0+b)^x = \sum_{k=0}^{\infty} \binom{x}{k} 0^k b^{x-k}
\binom{x}{0} 0^0 b^{x} + \binom{x}{1} 0^1 b^{x-1} + \binom{x}{2} 0^2 b^{x-2} + \hdots
\binom{x}{0} 0^0 b^{x}
0^0 b^{x}
where, I’ve used that 0^k = 0 for k>0, and that  \binom{x}{0} = 1. Now, it so happens that the right hand side has the magical factor 0^0. Hence, if we do not use 0^0 = 1 then the binomial theorem (as written) does not hold when a=0 because then b^x does not equal 0^0 b^{x}.
If mathematicians were to use 0^0 = 0, or to say that 0^0 is undefined, then the binomial theorem would continue to hold (in some form), though not as written above. In that case though the theorem would be more complicated because it would have to handle the special case of the term corresponding to k=0. We gain elegance and simplicity by using 0^0 = 1.
There are some further reasons why using 0^0 = 1 is preferable, but they boil down to that choice being more useful than the alternative choices, leading to simpler theorems, or feeling more “natural” to mathematicians. The choice is not “right”, it is merely nice.