WEBVTT

00:00:01.888 --> 00:00:09.539
In this video we will look at a couple of examples to practice thinking about conjectures and counter examples.

00:00:09.677 --> 00:00:17.844
Example A says: here's an algebraic equation and a table of values for <i>n</i> with the results for <i>t</i>.

00:00:18.044 --> 00:00:20.449
Notice that we started out with this equation:

00:00:25.557 --> 00:00:28.717
And what we have here is really just a table,

00:00:30.317 --> 00:00:39.352
that's divided in three parts, we have our values for <i>n</i>, all sort of calculations in the middle, and our answer fot <i>t</i>.

00:00:39.352 --> 00:00:43.383
And after looking at the table, Pablo makes this conjecture:

00:00:43.383 --> 00:00:53.391
the value of (<i>n</i>-1)(<i>n</i>-2)(<i>n</i>-3), in other words, the answer for <i>t</i> is zero for any hole number value of <i>n</i>.

00:00:53.391 --> 00:00:58.938
So, he is basically saying, that no matter what number I plug in over on the left from <i>n</i>,

00:00:58.938 --> 00:01:02.002
my answer is always going to end up being zero

00:01:02.002 --> 00:01:05.269
because that's what happen in the first three times. So maybe it will always happen.

00:01:05.269 --> 00:01:09.902
The question that we have is: is this a valid, or true, conjecture?

00:01:09.902 --> 00:01:14.809
So, if it's true, it means that it would be true for any number that you plug in for <i>n</i>.

00:01:14.809 --> 00:01:19.133
So you can plug in 100, and the answer should still be zero for <i>t</i>.

00:01:19.133 --> 00:01:25.501
So let's just test it out. Let's just try 100. Let's say <i>n</i>=100.

00:01:25.501 --> 00:01:31.078
We are trying to see if <i>t</i> will actually be equal zero.
So let's plug it in.

00:01:31.324 --> 00:01:39.119
We would have (100-1)(100-2)(100-3).

00:01:39.442 --> 00:01:41.283
100-1 is 99..

00:01:41.683 --> 00:01:43.660
Then we've got times 98,

00:01:43.937 --> 00:01:45.579
and times 97.

00:01:45.949 --> 00:01:49.191
Now I know that the answer to that is not zero,

00:01:49.191 --> 00:01:55.234
because to have an answer zero you have to multiply some of the one of the line by zero.

00:01:55.234 --> 00:02:01.534
So, this number is not equal zero. It's just gonna be a big number, definetly not equal to zero.

NOTE Paragraph

00:02:01.711 --> 00:02:06.371
So that means actually that his conjecture is not valid.


00:02:07.140 --> 00:02:15.396
It's not true and what I just did over here: <i>n</i> equals 100, that's a counter example.

00:02:15.642 --> 00:02:21.014
Because it's a specific example that shows that his conjecture is wrong.

00:02:21.014 --> 00:02:28.504
I can plug in, for example, 100 into that expression for <i>t</i> and my answer is not zero. Therefore, he is wrong.

00:02:28.504 --> 00:02:33.195
So a counter example is just one example to prove someone is wrong.

00:02:33.195 --> 00:02:38.808
That counter prefix means like going against the clean.

00:02:39.023 --> 00:02:42.072
Alright, let's look at example B:

00:02:43.241 --> 00:02:49.121
*Arthur is making figures for a graphic art project. He drew polygons and some of their diagonals.*

00:02:49.275 --> 00:02:55.714
And here we have four examples, based on these examples, Arthur made this conjecture:

00:02:55.714 --> 00:03:04.977
*if a convex polygon has <i>n</i> sides, then there are <i>n</i>-2 triangles drawn from any given vertex of the polygon.*

00:03:04.977 --> 00:03:10.522
So let's just think about what that means. He is saying that, if the shape has <i>n</i> sides,

00:03:10.522 --> 00:03:15.395
for example, this would be <i>n</i> equals 3, three sides,

00:03:15.765 --> 00:03:17.307
four sides,

00:03:17.768 --> 00:03:19.631
five sides,

00:03:20.462 --> 00:03:21.702
six sides.

00:03:21.778 --> 00:03:26.387
He is saying that there are always <i>n</i> minus 2 triangles.

00:03:26.387 --> 00:03:36.625
So, for example, if <i>n</i> is five, 5-2 is 3, he is saying, in this example, there are 3 triangles: one, two, three.

00:03:36.625 --> 00:03:42.909
And in the next one that are four triangles, which is 6-2.

00:03:42.909 --> 00:03:49.726
So, the question is: is Arthur's conjecture correct? Can you find a counter example to his conjecture?

00:03:49.726 --> 00:03:55.910
Well, his conjecture certainly appears to be correct based on the four examples that he has done.

00:03:55.910 --> 00:04:02.510
And we could do more examples and it would actually turn out that any example you'll try, it will be true,

00:04:02.510 --> 00:04:08.061
but you still haven't proven it, if you've just looked at examples, because it is still possible

00:04:08.061 --> 00:04:14.227
that that's another example out of there that you haven't thought out. That would be a counter example to his conjecture.

00:04:14.227 --> 00:04:15.973
So what we should say is:

00:04:15.973 --> 00:04:19.765
his conjecture appears to be true,

00:04:22.411 --> 00:04:24.496
but it still needs to be proven.

00:04:26.694 --> 00:04:35.403
Because just looking at examples isn't an official really proof for sure that it will always be true.