What are the theorems in mathematics which can be proved using completely different ideas? ...
How does debian/ubuntu knows a package has a updated version
How come Sam didn't become Lord of Horn Hill?
Understanding Ceva's Theorem
Why is "Consequences inflicted." not a sentence?
How to tell that you are a giant?
List *all* the tuples!
Denied boarding although I have proper visa and documentation. To whom should I make a complaint?
Okay to merge included columns on otherwise identical indexes?
Why are there no cargo aircraft with "flying wing" design?
What is known about the Ubaid lizard-people figurines?
Why are Kinder Surprise Eggs illegal in the USA?
What is the logic behind the Maharil's explanation of why we don't say שעשה ניסים on Pesach?
Extract all GPU name, model and GPU ram
Short Story with Cinderella as a Voo-doo Witch
Why didn't this character "real die" when they blew their stack out in Altered Carbon?
Seeking colloquialism for “just because”
How to find out what spells would be useless to a blind NPC spellcaster?
How discoverable are IPv6 addresses and AAAA names by potential attackers?
String `!23` is replaced with `docker` in command line
When a candle burns, why does the top of wick glow if bottom of flame is hottest?
Why light coming from distant stars is not discrete?
What is Wonderstone and are there any references to it pre-1982?
Can a non-EU citizen traveling with me come with me through the EU passport line?
Error "illegal generic type for instanceof" when using local classes
What are the theorems in mathematics which can be proved using completely different ideas?
Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara
Planned maintenance scheduled April 17/18, 2019 at 00:00UTC (8:00pm US/Eastern)Proving $int_{0}^{infty} mathrm{e}^{-x^2} dx = frac{sqrt pi}{2}$What is the most unusual proof you know that $sqrt{2}$ is irrational?Proof that a Combination is an integerNeed to prove the sequence $a_n=1+frac{1}{2^2}+frac{1}{3^2}+cdots+frac{1}{n^2}$ convergesIs $(mathbb{Q},+)$ the direct product of two non-trivial subgroups?Question about Euler's approach to find $sum_{n=1}^inftyfrac1{n^2}=frac{pi^2}6$When are two proofs “the same”?Evaluatig: $int_{0}^{infty}{e^{ax^2}cos(bx)dx}$Does there exist a group that is both a free product and a direct product of nontrivial groups?What is the largest possible variance of a random variable on $[0; 1]$?What are some easily-stated recently proven theorems?Need a theoretical textbook for calculus, proof basedBook ref. request: “…starting from a mathematically amorphous problem and combining ideas from sources to produce new mathematics…”Russian Texts on GeometryThe Largest Gaps in the History of MathematicsWhat delimits the mathematical framework within which information compression limits (from entropy) are valid.Similar book to All the Mathematics You Missed but at a graduate level that is of a reasonable size?Theorems relating to the limitation of mathematicsVery Elementary books on Analytic Number TheorySolutions for “What is Mathematics?” by Courant
$begingroup$
I would like to know about theorems which can give different proofs using completely different techniques.
Motivation:
When I read from the book Proof from the Book, I saw there were many many proof for the same theorem using completely different fields of mathematics.
(There were Six proofs of the infinity of primes based on different ideas even using topology.)
I wonder How mathematicians give this kind of proofs.
If you know such theorems and proofs please share them with me. Thank you.
reference-request big-list alternative-proof
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I would like to know about theorems which can give different proofs using completely different techniques.
Motivation:
When I read from the book Proof from the Book, I saw there were many many proof for the same theorem using completely different fields of mathematics.
(There were Six proofs of the infinity of primes based on different ideas even using topology.)
I wonder How mathematicians give this kind of proofs.
If you know such theorems and proofs please share them with me. Thank you.
reference-request big-list alternative-proof
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
when are two proofs the same
$endgroup$
– Bumblebee
May 7 '15 at 6:38
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I would like to know about theorems which can give different proofs using completely different techniques.
Motivation:
When I read from the book Proof from the Book, I saw there were many many proof for the same theorem using completely different fields of mathematics.
(There were Six proofs of the infinity of primes based on different ideas even using topology.)
I wonder How mathematicians give this kind of proofs.
If you know such theorems and proofs please share them with me. Thank you.
reference-request big-list alternative-proof
$endgroup$
I would like to know about theorems which can give different proofs using completely different techniques.
Motivation:
When I read from the book Proof from the Book, I saw there were many many proof for the same theorem using completely different fields of mathematics.
(There were Six proofs of the infinity of primes based on different ideas even using topology.)
I wonder How mathematicians give this kind of proofs.
If you know such theorems and proofs please share them with me. Thank you.
reference-request big-list alternative-proof
reference-request big-list alternative-proof
edited Aug 10 '15 at 10:49
Bumblebee
asked Nov 7 '14 at 1:34
BumblebeeBumblebee
9,74912551
9,74912551
$begingroup$
when are two proofs the same
$endgroup$
– Bumblebee
May 7 '15 at 6:38
add a comment |
$begingroup$
when are two proofs the same
$endgroup$
– Bumblebee
May 7 '15 at 6:38
$begingroup$
when are two proofs the same
$endgroup$
– Bumblebee
May 7 '15 at 6:38
$begingroup$
when are two proofs the same
$endgroup$
– Bumblebee
May 7 '15 at 6:38
add a comment |
13 Answers
13
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
One example of a theorem with multiple proofs is the Fundamental Theorem of Algebra (All polynomials in $mathbb{C}[x]$ have the "right number" of roots). One way to prove this is build up enough complex analysis to prove that every bounded entire function is constant. Another way is to build up algebraic topology and use facts about maps from balls and circles into the punctured plane. Both of these techniques are used specifically to show one such root exists (and once this is proved the rest of the proof is easy).
I think there are other possible proofs of the theorem but these are two I have seen.
$endgroup$
2
$begingroup$
See more proofs in the book The Fundamental Theorem of Algebra by Fine and Rosenberger.
$endgroup$
– lhf
Jan 26 '15 at 10:33
1
$begingroup$
You can prove the fundamental theorem of algebra using Lie theory: if $L / Bbb C$ were a finite extension, the complex projective space $PL$ would inherit the structure of a compact commutative Lie group from the multiplication on $L$. But compact commutative Lie groups are tori, and complex projective space in any positive dimension is not a torus. (Credit goes to Mariano Suárez-Alvarez; I learned this proof from a comment he posted somewhere.) You can also prove the FTA entirely algebraically, though I don't remember the details.
$endgroup$
– user98602
May 6 '15 at 3:29
3
$begingroup$
See mathoverflow.net/questions/10535/… where 44 answers have been posted.
$endgroup$
– Gerry Myerson
Jul 15 '15 at 7:20
1
$begingroup$
There is an algebraic proof that makes use of the Sylow theorems and basic Galois theory.
$endgroup$
– Slade
Jul 15 '15 at 7:52
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The Brouwer fixed-point theorem. The Wikipedia lists the following methods:
- Homology
- Stokes's theorem
- Combinatorial (Sperner's lemma)
- Reducing to the smooth case and using Sard's theorem
- Reducing to the smooth case and using the COV theorem
- Lefschetz fixed-point theorem
- Using Hex
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
What is COV theorem?
$endgroup$
– Mizar
Jan 28 '15 at 9:10
$begingroup$
@Mizar, change of variables: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/….
$endgroup$
– Martín-Blas Pérez Pinilla
Jan 28 '15 at 9:14
$begingroup$
While we're at it, there are two proofs using the Brouwer degree for continuous maps of open sets in $mathbb{R}^n$. One is essentially the same as Hirsch's theorem based on the impossibility of a retraction onto $S^{n-1}$, and the other constructs a homotopy between the identity and identity minus the continuous map.
$endgroup$
– Gyu Eun Lee
Mar 16 '15 at 7:14
add a comment |
$begingroup$
A large rectangle is tiled with smaller rectangles. Each of the smaller rectangles has at least one integer side. Must the large rectangle have at least one integer side?
What if you replace 'integer' with 'rational' or 'algebraic'?
Here are fourteen proofs.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Thanks, this is very nice!
$endgroup$
– joriki
Jul 27 '15 at 17:29
add a comment |
$begingroup$
As a kind of extreme example, I've heard of this book, reputed to have given over 360 proofs of the Pythagorean theorem. I'm not sure how pairwise different they are, but there's bound to be a lot of variety.
Another one that sticks in my mind is the proof of the Cayley-Hamilton theorem
for real (or complex) matrices. There is an algebraic proof that works for any field at all, but for the reals and complexes, you can argue topologically that the matrix you are working with is the limit of a sequence of diagonalizable matrices, and since the approximations satisfy their characteristic polynomial, so does the limit.
$endgroup$
3
$begingroup$
+1, and interestingly, the geometric proof of Cayley-Hamilton even carries over to arbitrary fields when one uses the Zariski topology.
$endgroup$
– Hanno
Jan 18 '15 at 13:15
1
$begingroup$
I'm currently this this, which gives a number of different proofs of the Pythagorean Theorem. Some proofs are very similar to each other, but others are quite different.
$endgroup$
– Randy E
Jan 18 '15 at 13:16
add a comment |
$begingroup$
$20$ different proofs 0f the Euler Formula
$$color{Red}{V-E+F=2.}$$$10$ different proofs 0f the Gaussian Integral
$$color{Green}{int_{mathbb{R}}e^{-x^2},mathrm{d}x=sqrtpi.}$$
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
This and this also provides some methods of evaluating Gaussian integral.
$endgroup$
– Bumblebee
Jul 15 '15 at 8:17
add a comment |
$begingroup$
A famous example is the law of quadratic reciprocity. Wikipedia says that
several hundred proofs of the law of quadratic reciprocity have been found.
Many details concerning proofs by different methods can be found at the question at MO.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The first example that comes to my mind is the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality.
Here there is a paper I found some time ago in which the authors claim (I write claim, because I did not check each proof) to be able to show twelve different proofs of the result.
Actually, there is an entire book on inequalities that starts from this very basic one, with various proofs of it.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
There are several results of this kind: For example the period three implies chaos theorem (http://mathworld.wolfram.com/PeriodThreeTheorem.html) was proved by Li and York (in 1975) by using the intermediate values theorem for continuous functions in despite the result belongs to discrete dynamics. A generalization of this result (http://mathworld.wolfram.com/SharkovskysTheorem.html) was made before (in 1965) by A.N. Sharkovsky by using a very complicated and different method.
Also, I note that the most know theorems of L. Riemann were proved by introducing new ideas based on complex analysis. Those of Euler are based on the series...etc.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Irving Adler in 'a new look at geometry' gives a circular chain of proofs of alternate versions of the fifth postulate (that if a line striking each of two lines at the same angle, then the two lines do not cross at any distance).
The idea of such a proof shows that all of these propositions are identical in function.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Proofs that $sqrt{2}$
is irrational.
I know (at least) four,
and there are lists of many more.
I could go on,
but would be a bore,
so I'll let someone else
have the floor.
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
Do a Google search for "proof square root of 2 is irrational". One link, which has a number of proofs, is here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Square_root_of_2
$endgroup$
– marty cohen
May 22 '15 at 14:56
$begingroup$
I found your this post. Thank you.
$endgroup$
– Bumblebee
Jun 22 '15 at 7:43
1
$begingroup$
Another link with may proofs is cut-the-knot.org/proofs/sq_root.shtml
$endgroup$
– Gerry Myerson
Jul 21 '15 at 6:56
1
$begingroup$
When writing your answer, did you mean to rhyme each time [: )]?
$endgroup$
– Antonio DJC
Jun 11 '17 at 3:33
$begingroup$
One thing is certain: my rhyming is rarely inadverten t.
$endgroup$
– marty cohen
Jun 11 '17 at 4:49
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Robin Chapman gives 14 proofs of $$sum_{n=1}^{infty}{1over n^2}={pi^2over6}$$ here.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
This article provides a beautiful non-proof (Euler's proof) of this identity. Thank you.
$endgroup$
– Bumblebee
Jul 17 '15 at 8:50
add a comment |
$begingroup$
For $ngeq kinmathbb{N}$, you can prove that $dfrac{n!}{k!cdot(n-k)!}$ is an integer from a combinatorial/counting argument. Establish that the formula gives the number of ways to choose a subset of $k$ from a set of $n$, and that automatically makes it an integer.
Or you can prove that $dfrac{n!}{k!cdot(n-k)!}$ is an integer by showing that the highest power of any prime $p$ dividing the denominator is less than the highest power of $p$ dividing the numerator.
Several proofs here.
$endgroup$
3
$begingroup$
You can also prove this using group actions: $S_n$ acts on the set ${1, 2, dotsc, n}$, and the stabilizer of any $k$-set from that set is $S_ktimes S_{n-k}$. So by the orbit-stabilizer theorem, the number of such $k$-sets is the number of orbits, which is $frac{|S_n|}{|S_k||S_{n-k}|} = frac{n!}{k!(n-k)!}$.
$endgroup$
– rogerl
Jul 27 '15 at 17:27
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Other examples of such many-proof theorems include:
1) Harmonic series diverges
There are at least 8 proofs of this fact based on different ideas.
The first four of them can be found under this link: https://proofwiki.org/wiki/Harmonic_Series_is_Divergent
The other four are of the following form:
"If a subseries diverges, then the whole series diverges too. Now let's prove that the subseries of harmonic series, that formed only by reciprocals of primes diverges..."
And there are at least four different ways to prove it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divergence_of_the_sum_of_the_reciprocals_of_the_primes
2) Variance of a random variable with support in $[0; 1]$ does not exceed $frac{1}{4}$
There are at least three proofs of this, based on different ideas: What is the largest possible variance of a random variable on $[0; 1]$?
3) No group is both a direct product and a direct product of non-trivial groups
There are at least three proofs of this, based on different ideas: Does there exist a group that is both a free product and a direct product of nontrivial groups?
4) $(mathbb{Q}, +)$ is not a direct product of any two non-trivial groups
There are at least three proofs of this, based on different ideas: Is $(mathbb{Q},+)$ the direct product of two non-trivial subgroups?
$endgroup$
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "69"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f1009922%2fwhat-are-the-theorems-in-mathematics-which-can-be-proved-using-completely-differ%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
13 Answers
13
active
oldest
votes
13 Answers
13
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
One example of a theorem with multiple proofs is the Fundamental Theorem of Algebra (All polynomials in $mathbb{C}[x]$ have the "right number" of roots). One way to prove this is build up enough complex analysis to prove that every bounded entire function is constant. Another way is to build up algebraic topology and use facts about maps from balls and circles into the punctured plane. Both of these techniques are used specifically to show one such root exists (and once this is proved the rest of the proof is easy).
I think there are other possible proofs of the theorem but these are two I have seen.
$endgroup$
2
$begingroup$
See more proofs in the book The Fundamental Theorem of Algebra by Fine and Rosenberger.
$endgroup$
– lhf
Jan 26 '15 at 10:33
1
$begingroup$
You can prove the fundamental theorem of algebra using Lie theory: if $L / Bbb C$ were a finite extension, the complex projective space $PL$ would inherit the structure of a compact commutative Lie group from the multiplication on $L$. But compact commutative Lie groups are tori, and complex projective space in any positive dimension is not a torus. (Credit goes to Mariano Suárez-Alvarez; I learned this proof from a comment he posted somewhere.) You can also prove the FTA entirely algebraically, though I don't remember the details.
$endgroup$
– user98602
May 6 '15 at 3:29
3
$begingroup$
See mathoverflow.net/questions/10535/… where 44 answers have been posted.
$endgroup$
– Gerry Myerson
Jul 15 '15 at 7:20
1
$begingroup$
There is an algebraic proof that makes use of the Sylow theorems and basic Galois theory.
$endgroup$
– Slade
Jul 15 '15 at 7:52
add a comment |
$begingroup$
One example of a theorem with multiple proofs is the Fundamental Theorem of Algebra (All polynomials in $mathbb{C}[x]$ have the "right number" of roots). One way to prove this is build up enough complex analysis to prove that every bounded entire function is constant. Another way is to build up algebraic topology and use facts about maps from balls and circles into the punctured plane. Both of these techniques are used specifically to show one such root exists (and once this is proved the rest of the proof is easy).
I think there are other possible proofs of the theorem but these are two I have seen.
$endgroup$
2
$begingroup$
See more proofs in the book The Fundamental Theorem of Algebra by Fine and Rosenberger.
$endgroup$
– lhf
Jan 26 '15 at 10:33
1
$begingroup$
You can prove the fundamental theorem of algebra using Lie theory: if $L / Bbb C$ were a finite extension, the complex projective space $PL$ would inherit the structure of a compact commutative Lie group from the multiplication on $L$. But compact commutative Lie groups are tori, and complex projective space in any positive dimension is not a torus. (Credit goes to Mariano Suárez-Alvarez; I learned this proof from a comment he posted somewhere.) You can also prove the FTA entirely algebraically, though I don't remember the details.
$endgroup$
– user98602
May 6 '15 at 3:29
3
$begingroup$
See mathoverflow.net/questions/10535/… where 44 answers have been posted.
$endgroup$
– Gerry Myerson
Jul 15 '15 at 7:20
1
$begingroup$
There is an algebraic proof that makes use of the Sylow theorems and basic Galois theory.
$endgroup$
– Slade
Jul 15 '15 at 7:52
add a comment |
$begingroup$
One example of a theorem with multiple proofs is the Fundamental Theorem of Algebra (All polynomials in $mathbb{C}[x]$ have the "right number" of roots). One way to prove this is build up enough complex analysis to prove that every bounded entire function is constant. Another way is to build up algebraic topology and use facts about maps from balls and circles into the punctured plane. Both of these techniques are used specifically to show one such root exists (and once this is proved the rest of the proof is easy).
I think there are other possible proofs of the theorem but these are two I have seen.
$endgroup$
One example of a theorem with multiple proofs is the Fundamental Theorem of Algebra (All polynomials in $mathbb{C}[x]$ have the "right number" of roots). One way to prove this is build up enough complex analysis to prove that every bounded entire function is constant. Another way is to build up algebraic topology and use facts about maps from balls and circles into the punctured plane. Both of these techniques are used specifically to show one such root exists (and once this is proved the rest of the proof is easy).
I think there are other possible proofs of the theorem but these are two I have seen.
answered Nov 8 '14 at 0:00
user171177
2
$begingroup$
See more proofs in the book The Fundamental Theorem of Algebra by Fine and Rosenberger.
$endgroup$
– lhf
Jan 26 '15 at 10:33
1
$begingroup$
You can prove the fundamental theorem of algebra using Lie theory: if $L / Bbb C$ were a finite extension, the complex projective space $PL$ would inherit the structure of a compact commutative Lie group from the multiplication on $L$. But compact commutative Lie groups are tori, and complex projective space in any positive dimension is not a torus. (Credit goes to Mariano Suárez-Alvarez; I learned this proof from a comment he posted somewhere.) You can also prove the FTA entirely algebraically, though I don't remember the details.
$endgroup$
– user98602
May 6 '15 at 3:29
3
$begingroup$
See mathoverflow.net/questions/10535/… where 44 answers have been posted.
$endgroup$
– Gerry Myerson
Jul 15 '15 at 7:20
1
$begingroup$
There is an algebraic proof that makes use of the Sylow theorems and basic Galois theory.
$endgroup$
– Slade
Jul 15 '15 at 7:52
add a comment |
2
$begingroup$
See more proofs in the book The Fundamental Theorem of Algebra by Fine and Rosenberger.
$endgroup$
– lhf
Jan 26 '15 at 10:33
1
$begingroup$
You can prove the fundamental theorem of algebra using Lie theory: if $L / Bbb C$ were a finite extension, the complex projective space $PL$ would inherit the structure of a compact commutative Lie group from the multiplication on $L$. But compact commutative Lie groups are tori, and complex projective space in any positive dimension is not a torus. (Credit goes to Mariano Suárez-Alvarez; I learned this proof from a comment he posted somewhere.) You can also prove the FTA entirely algebraically, though I don't remember the details.
$endgroup$
– user98602
May 6 '15 at 3:29
3
$begingroup$
See mathoverflow.net/questions/10535/… where 44 answers have been posted.
$endgroup$
– Gerry Myerson
Jul 15 '15 at 7:20
1
$begingroup$
There is an algebraic proof that makes use of the Sylow theorems and basic Galois theory.
$endgroup$
– Slade
Jul 15 '15 at 7:52
2
2
$begingroup$
See more proofs in the book The Fundamental Theorem of Algebra by Fine and Rosenberger.
$endgroup$
– lhf
Jan 26 '15 at 10:33
$begingroup$
See more proofs in the book The Fundamental Theorem of Algebra by Fine and Rosenberger.
$endgroup$
– lhf
Jan 26 '15 at 10:33
1
1
$begingroup$
You can prove the fundamental theorem of algebra using Lie theory: if $L / Bbb C$ were a finite extension, the complex projective space $PL$ would inherit the structure of a compact commutative Lie group from the multiplication on $L$. But compact commutative Lie groups are tori, and complex projective space in any positive dimension is not a torus. (Credit goes to Mariano Suárez-Alvarez; I learned this proof from a comment he posted somewhere.) You can also prove the FTA entirely algebraically, though I don't remember the details.
$endgroup$
– user98602
May 6 '15 at 3:29
$begingroup$
You can prove the fundamental theorem of algebra using Lie theory: if $L / Bbb C$ were a finite extension, the complex projective space $PL$ would inherit the structure of a compact commutative Lie group from the multiplication on $L$. But compact commutative Lie groups are tori, and complex projective space in any positive dimension is not a torus. (Credit goes to Mariano Suárez-Alvarez; I learned this proof from a comment he posted somewhere.) You can also prove the FTA entirely algebraically, though I don't remember the details.
$endgroup$
– user98602
May 6 '15 at 3:29
3
3
$begingroup$
See mathoverflow.net/questions/10535/… where 44 answers have been posted.
$endgroup$
– Gerry Myerson
Jul 15 '15 at 7:20
$begingroup$
See mathoverflow.net/questions/10535/… where 44 answers have been posted.
$endgroup$
– Gerry Myerson
Jul 15 '15 at 7:20
1
1
$begingroup$
There is an algebraic proof that makes use of the Sylow theorems and basic Galois theory.
$endgroup$
– Slade
Jul 15 '15 at 7:52
$begingroup$
There is an algebraic proof that makes use of the Sylow theorems and basic Galois theory.
$endgroup$
– Slade
Jul 15 '15 at 7:52
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The Brouwer fixed-point theorem. The Wikipedia lists the following methods:
- Homology
- Stokes's theorem
- Combinatorial (Sperner's lemma)
- Reducing to the smooth case and using Sard's theorem
- Reducing to the smooth case and using the COV theorem
- Lefschetz fixed-point theorem
- Using Hex
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
What is COV theorem?
$endgroup$
– Mizar
Jan 28 '15 at 9:10
$begingroup$
@Mizar, change of variables: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/….
$endgroup$
– Martín-Blas Pérez Pinilla
Jan 28 '15 at 9:14
$begingroup$
While we're at it, there are two proofs using the Brouwer degree for continuous maps of open sets in $mathbb{R}^n$. One is essentially the same as Hirsch's theorem based on the impossibility of a retraction onto $S^{n-1}$, and the other constructs a homotopy between the identity and identity minus the continuous map.
$endgroup$
– Gyu Eun Lee
Mar 16 '15 at 7:14
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The Brouwer fixed-point theorem. The Wikipedia lists the following methods:
- Homology
- Stokes's theorem
- Combinatorial (Sperner's lemma)
- Reducing to the smooth case and using Sard's theorem
- Reducing to the smooth case and using the COV theorem
- Lefschetz fixed-point theorem
- Using Hex
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
What is COV theorem?
$endgroup$
– Mizar
Jan 28 '15 at 9:10
$begingroup$
@Mizar, change of variables: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/….
$endgroup$
– Martín-Blas Pérez Pinilla
Jan 28 '15 at 9:14
$begingroup$
While we're at it, there are two proofs using the Brouwer degree for continuous maps of open sets in $mathbb{R}^n$. One is essentially the same as Hirsch's theorem based on the impossibility of a retraction onto $S^{n-1}$, and the other constructs a homotopy between the identity and identity minus the continuous map.
$endgroup$
– Gyu Eun Lee
Mar 16 '15 at 7:14
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The Brouwer fixed-point theorem. The Wikipedia lists the following methods:
- Homology
- Stokes's theorem
- Combinatorial (Sperner's lemma)
- Reducing to the smooth case and using Sard's theorem
- Reducing to the smooth case and using the COV theorem
- Lefschetz fixed-point theorem
- Using Hex
$endgroup$
The Brouwer fixed-point theorem. The Wikipedia lists the following methods:
- Homology
- Stokes's theorem
- Combinatorial (Sperner's lemma)
- Reducing to the smooth case and using Sard's theorem
- Reducing to the smooth case and using the COV theorem
- Lefschetz fixed-point theorem
- Using Hex
answered Jan 26 '15 at 10:15
Martín-Blas Pérez PinillaMartín-Blas Pérez Pinilla
35.5k42972
35.5k42972
$begingroup$
What is COV theorem?
$endgroup$
– Mizar
Jan 28 '15 at 9:10
$begingroup$
@Mizar, change of variables: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/….
$endgroup$
– Martín-Blas Pérez Pinilla
Jan 28 '15 at 9:14
$begingroup$
While we're at it, there are two proofs using the Brouwer degree for continuous maps of open sets in $mathbb{R}^n$. One is essentially the same as Hirsch's theorem based on the impossibility of a retraction onto $S^{n-1}$, and the other constructs a homotopy between the identity and identity minus the continuous map.
$endgroup$
– Gyu Eun Lee
Mar 16 '15 at 7:14
add a comment |
$begingroup$
What is COV theorem?
$endgroup$
– Mizar
Jan 28 '15 at 9:10
$begingroup$
@Mizar, change of variables: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/….
$endgroup$
– Martín-Blas Pérez Pinilla
Jan 28 '15 at 9:14
$begingroup$
While we're at it, there are two proofs using the Brouwer degree for continuous maps of open sets in $mathbb{R}^n$. One is essentially the same as Hirsch's theorem based on the impossibility of a retraction onto $S^{n-1}$, and the other constructs a homotopy between the identity and identity minus the continuous map.
$endgroup$
– Gyu Eun Lee
Mar 16 '15 at 7:14
$begingroup$
What is COV theorem?
$endgroup$
– Mizar
Jan 28 '15 at 9:10
$begingroup$
What is COV theorem?
$endgroup$
– Mizar
Jan 28 '15 at 9:10
$begingroup$
@Mizar, change of variables: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/….
$endgroup$
– Martín-Blas Pérez Pinilla
Jan 28 '15 at 9:14
$begingroup$
@Mizar, change of variables: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/….
$endgroup$
– Martín-Blas Pérez Pinilla
Jan 28 '15 at 9:14
$begingroup$
While we're at it, there are two proofs using the Brouwer degree for continuous maps of open sets in $mathbb{R}^n$. One is essentially the same as Hirsch's theorem based on the impossibility of a retraction onto $S^{n-1}$, and the other constructs a homotopy between the identity and identity minus the continuous map.
$endgroup$
– Gyu Eun Lee
Mar 16 '15 at 7:14
$begingroup$
While we're at it, there are two proofs using the Brouwer degree for continuous maps of open sets in $mathbb{R}^n$. One is essentially the same as Hirsch's theorem based on the impossibility of a retraction onto $S^{n-1}$, and the other constructs a homotopy between the identity and identity minus the continuous map.
$endgroup$
– Gyu Eun Lee
Mar 16 '15 at 7:14
add a comment |
$begingroup$
A large rectangle is tiled with smaller rectangles. Each of the smaller rectangles has at least one integer side. Must the large rectangle have at least one integer side?
What if you replace 'integer' with 'rational' or 'algebraic'?
Here are fourteen proofs.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Thanks, this is very nice!
$endgroup$
– joriki
Jul 27 '15 at 17:29
add a comment |
$begingroup$
A large rectangle is tiled with smaller rectangles. Each of the smaller rectangles has at least one integer side. Must the large rectangle have at least one integer side?
What if you replace 'integer' with 'rational' or 'algebraic'?
Here are fourteen proofs.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Thanks, this is very nice!
$endgroup$
– joriki
Jul 27 '15 at 17:29
add a comment |
$begingroup$
A large rectangle is tiled with smaller rectangles. Each of the smaller rectangles has at least one integer side. Must the large rectangle have at least one integer side?
What if you replace 'integer' with 'rational' or 'algebraic'?
Here are fourteen proofs.
$endgroup$
A large rectangle is tiled with smaller rectangles. Each of the smaller rectangles has at least one integer side. Must the large rectangle have at least one integer side?
What if you replace 'integer' with 'rational' or 'algebraic'?
Here are fourteen proofs.
answered Jan 18 '15 at 13:10
LopsyLopsy
3,7731423
3,7731423
$begingroup$
Thanks, this is very nice!
$endgroup$
– joriki
Jul 27 '15 at 17:29
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Thanks, this is very nice!
$endgroup$
– joriki
Jul 27 '15 at 17:29
$begingroup$
Thanks, this is very nice!
$endgroup$
– joriki
Jul 27 '15 at 17:29
$begingroup$
Thanks, this is very nice!
$endgroup$
– joriki
Jul 27 '15 at 17:29
add a comment |
$begingroup$
As a kind of extreme example, I've heard of this book, reputed to have given over 360 proofs of the Pythagorean theorem. I'm not sure how pairwise different they are, but there's bound to be a lot of variety.
Another one that sticks in my mind is the proof of the Cayley-Hamilton theorem
for real (or complex) matrices. There is an algebraic proof that works for any field at all, but for the reals and complexes, you can argue topologically that the matrix you are working with is the limit of a sequence of diagonalizable matrices, and since the approximations satisfy their characteristic polynomial, so does the limit.
$endgroup$
3
$begingroup$
+1, and interestingly, the geometric proof of Cayley-Hamilton even carries over to arbitrary fields when one uses the Zariski topology.
$endgroup$
– Hanno
Jan 18 '15 at 13:15
1
$begingroup$
I'm currently this this, which gives a number of different proofs of the Pythagorean Theorem. Some proofs are very similar to each other, but others are quite different.
$endgroup$
– Randy E
Jan 18 '15 at 13:16
add a comment |
$begingroup$
As a kind of extreme example, I've heard of this book, reputed to have given over 360 proofs of the Pythagorean theorem. I'm not sure how pairwise different they are, but there's bound to be a lot of variety.
Another one that sticks in my mind is the proof of the Cayley-Hamilton theorem
for real (or complex) matrices. There is an algebraic proof that works for any field at all, but for the reals and complexes, you can argue topologically that the matrix you are working with is the limit of a sequence of diagonalizable matrices, and since the approximations satisfy their characteristic polynomial, so does the limit.
$endgroup$
3
$begingroup$
+1, and interestingly, the geometric proof of Cayley-Hamilton even carries over to arbitrary fields when one uses the Zariski topology.
$endgroup$
– Hanno
Jan 18 '15 at 13:15
1
$begingroup$
I'm currently this this, which gives a number of different proofs of the Pythagorean Theorem. Some proofs are very similar to each other, but others are quite different.
$endgroup$
– Randy E
Jan 18 '15 at 13:16
add a comment |
$begingroup$
As a kind of extreme example, I've heard of this book, reputed to have given over 360 proofs of the Pythagorean theorem. I'm not sure how pairwise different they are, but there's bound to be a lot of variety.
Another one that sticks in my mind is the proof of the Cayley-Hamilton theorem
for real (or complex) matrices. There is an algebraic proof that works for any field at all, but for the reals and complexes, you can argue topologically that the matrix you are working with is the limit of a sequence of diagonalizable matrices, and since the approximations satisfy their characteristic polynomial, so does the limit.
$endgroup$
As a kind of extreme example, I've heard of this book, reputed to have given over 360 proofs of the Pythagorean theorem. I'm not sure how pairwise different they are, but there's bound to be a lot of variety.
Another one that sticks in my mind is the proof of the Cayley-Hamilton theorem
for real (or complex) matrices. There is an algebraic proof that works for any field at all, but for the reals and complexes, you can argue topologically that the matrix you are working with is the limit of a sequence of diagonalizable matrices, and since the approximations satisfy their characteristic polynomial, so does the limit.
edited Jul 15 '15 at 6:58
Bumblebee
9,74912551
9,74912551
answered Jan 18 '15 at 12:59
rschwiebrschwieb
108k12104253
108k12104253
3
$begingroup$
+1, and interestingly, the geometric proof of Cayley-Hamilton even carries over to arbitrary fields when one uses the Zariski topology.
$endgroup$
– Hanno
Jan 18 '15 at 13:15
1
$begingroup$
I'm currently this this, which gives a number of different proofs of the Pythagorean Theorem. Some proofs are very similar to each other, but others are quite different.
$endgroup$
– Randy E
Jan 18 '15 at 13:16
add a comment |
3
$begingroup$
+1, and interestingly, the geometric proof of Cayley-Hamilton even carries over to arbitrary fields when one uses the Zariski topology.
$endgroup$
– Hanno
Jan 18 '15 at 13:15
1
$begingroup$
I'm currently this this, which gives a number of different proofs of the Pythagorean Theorem. Some proofs are very similar to each other, but others are quite different.
$endgroup$
– Randy E
Jan 18 '15 at 13:16
3
3
$begingroup$
+1, and interestingly, the geometric proof of Cayley-Hamilton even carries over to arbitrary fields when one uses the Zariski topology.
$endgroup$
– Hanno
Jan 18 '15 at 13:15
$begingroup$
+1, and interestingly, the geometric proof of Cayley-Hamilton even carries over to arbitrary fields when one uses the Zariski topology.
$endgroup$
– Hanno
Jan 18 '15 at 13:15
1
1
$begingroup$
I'm currently this this, which gives a number of different proofs of the Pythagorean Theorem. Some proofs are very similar to each other, but others are quite different.
$endgroup$
– Randy E
Jan 18 '15 at 13:16
$begingroup$
I'm currently this this, which gives a number of different proofs of the Pythagorean Theorem. Some proofs are very similar to each other, but others are quite different.
$endgroup$
– Randy E
Jan 18 '15 at 13:16
add a comment |
$begingroup$
$20$ different proofs 0f the Euler Formula
$$color{Red}{V-E+F=2.}$$$10$ different proofs 0f the Gaussian Integral
$$color{Green}{int_{mathbb{R}}e^{-x^2},mathrm{d}x=sqrtpi.}$$
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
This and this also provides some methods of evaluating Gaussian integral.
$endgroup$
– Bumblebee
Jul 15 '15 at 8:17
add a comment |
$begingroup$
$20$ different proofs 0f the Euler Formula
$$color{Red}{V-E+F=2.}$$$10$ different proofs 0f the Gaussian Integral
$$color{Green}{int_{mathbb{R}}e^{-x^2},mathrm{d}x=sqrtpi.}$$
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
This and this also provides some methods of evaluating Gaussian integral.
$endgroup$
– Bumblebee
Jul 15 '15 at 8:17
add a comment |
$begingroup$
$20$ different proofs 0f the Euler Formula
$$color{Red}{V-E+F=2.}$$$10$ different proofs 0f the Gaussian Integral
$$color{Green}{int_{mathbb{R}}e^{-x^2},mathrm{d}x=sqrtpi.}$$
$endgroup$
$20$ different proofs 0f the Euler Formula
$$color{Red}{V-E+F=2.}$$$10$ different proofs 0f the Gaussian Integral
$$color{Green}{int_{mathbb{R}}e^{-x^2},mathrm{d}x=sqrtpi.}$$
edited Jan 30 '17 at 16:02
answered Jan 28 '15 at 8:56
BumblebeeBumblebee
9,74912551
9,74912551
$begingroup$
This and this also provides some methods of evaluating Gaussian integral.
$endgroup$
– Bumblebee
Jul 15 '15 at 8:17
add a comment |
$begingroup$
This and this also provides some methods of evaluating Gaussian integral.
$endgroup$
– Bumblebee
Jul 15 '15 at 8:17
$begingroup$
This and this also provides some methods of evaluating Gaussian integral.
$endgroup$
– Bumblebee
Jul 15 '15 at 8:17
$begingroup$
This and this also provides some methods of evaluating Gaussian integral.
$endgroup$
– Bumblebee
Jul 15 '15 at 8:17
add a comment |
$begingroup$
A famous example is the law of quadratic reciprocity. Wikipedia says that
several hundred proofs of the law of quadratic reciprocity have been found.
Many details concerning proofs by different methods can be found at the question at MO.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
A famous example is the law of quadratic reciprocity. Wikipedia says that
several hundred proofs of the law of quadratic reciprocity have been found.
Many details concerning proofs by different methods can be found at the question at MO.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
A famous example is the law of quadratic reciprocity. Wikipedia says that
several hundred proofs of the law of quadratic reciprocity have been found.
Many details concerning proofs by different methods can be found at the question at MO.
$endgroup$
A famous example is the law of quadratic reciprocity. Wikipedia says that
several hundred proofs of the law of quadratic reciprocity have been found.
Many details concerning proofs by different methods can be found at the question at MO.
edited Apr 13 '17 at 12:58
Community♦
1
1
answered Apr 29 '15 at 8:06
Dietrich BurdeDietrich Burde
82.1k649107
82.1k649107
add a comment |
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The first example that comes to my mind is the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality.
Here there is a paper I found some time ago in which the authors claim (I write claim, because I did not check each proof) to be able to show twelve different proofs of the result.
Actually, there is an entire book on inequalities that starts from this very basic one, with various proofs of it.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The first example that comes to my mind is the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality.
Here there is a paper I found some time ago in which the authors claim (I write claim, because I did not check each proof) to be able to show twelve different proofs of the result.
Actually, there is an entire book on inequalities that starts from this very basic one, with various proofs of it.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The first example that comes to my mind is the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality.
Here there is a paper I found some time ago in which the authors claim (I write claim, because I did not check each proof) to be able to show twelve different proofs of the result.
Actually, there is an entire book on inequalities that starts from this very basic one, with various proofs of it.
$endgroup$
The first example that comes to my mind is the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality.
Here there is a paper I found some time ago in which the authors claim (I write claim, because I did not check each proof) to be able to show twelve different proofs of the result.
Actually, there is an entire book on inequalities that starts from this very basic one, with various proofs of it.
answered Jan 28 '15 at 9:11
KolminKolmin
1,89411435
1,89411435
add a comment |
add a comment |
$begingroup$
There are several results of this kind: For example the period three implies chaos theorem (http://mathworld.wolfram.com/PeriodThreeTheorem.html) was proved by Li and York (in 1975) by using the intermediate values theorem for continuous functions in despite the result belongs to discrete dynamics. A generalization of this result (http://mathworld.wolfram.com/SharkovskysTheorem.html) was made before (in 1965) by A.N. Sharkovsky by using a very complicated and different method.
Also, I note that the most know theorems of L. Riemann were proved by introducing new ideas based on complex analysis. Those of Euler are based on the series...etc.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
There are several results of this kind: For example the period three implies chaos theorem (http://mathworld.wolfram.com/PeriodThreeTheorem.html) was proved by Li and York (in 1975) by using the intermediate values theorem for continuous functions in despite the result belongs to discrete dynamics. A generalization of this result (http://mathworld.wolfram.com/SharkovskysTheorem.html) was made before (in 1965) by A.N. Sharkovsky by using a very complicated and different method.
Also, I note that the most know theorems of L. Riemann were proved by introducing new ideas based on complex analysis. Those of Euler are based on the series...etc.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
There are several results of this kind: For example the period three implies chaos theorem (http://mathworld.wolfram.com/PeriodThreeTheorem.html) was proved by Li and York (in 1975) by using the intermediate values theorem for continuous functions in despite the result belongs to discrete dynamics. A generalization of this result (http://mathworld.wolfram.com/SharkovskysTheorem.html) was made before (in 1965) by A.N. Sharkovsky by using a very complicated and different method.
Also, I note that the most know theorems of L. Riemann were proved by introducing new ideas based on complex analysis. Those of Euler are based on the series...etc.
$endgroup$
There are several results of this kind: For example the period three implies chaos theorem (http://mathworld.wolfram.com/PeriodThreeTheorem.html) was proved by Li and York (in 1975) by using the intermediate values theorem for continuous functions in despite the result belongs to discrete dynamics. A generalization of this result (http://mathworld.wolfram.com/SharkovskysTheorem.html) was made before (in 1965) by A.N. Sharkovsky by using a very complicated and different method.
Also, I note that the most know theorems of L. Riemann were proved by introducing new ideas based on complex analysis. Those of Euler are based on the series...etc.
edited Jan 18 '15 at 13:04
answered Jan 18 '15 at 12:48
DERDER
1,6631018
1,6631018
add a comment |
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Irving Adler in 'a new look at geometry' gives a circular chain of proofs of alternate versions of the fifth postulate (that if a line striking each of two lines at the same angle, then the two lines do not cross at any distance).
The idea of such a proof shows that all of these propositions are identical in function.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Irving Adler in 'a new look at geometry' gives a circular chain of proofs of alternate versions of the fifth postulate (that if a line striking each of two lines at the same angle, then the two lines do not cross at any distance).
The idea of such a proof shows that all of these propositions are identical in function.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Irving Adler in 'a new look at geometry' gives a circular chain of proofs of alternate versions of the fifth postulate (that if a line striking each of two lines at the same angle, then the two lines do not cross at any distance).
The idea of such a proof shows that all of these propositions are identical in function.
$endgroup$
Irving Adler in 'a new look at geometry' gives a circular chain of proofs of alternate versions of the fifth postulate (that if a line striking each of two lines at the same angle, then the two lines do not cross at any distance).
The idea of such a proof shows that all of these propositions are identical in function.
answered Jan 28 '15 at 9:33
wendy.kriegerwendy.krieger
5,86311427
5,86311427
add a comment |
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Proofs that $sqrt{2}$
is irrational.
I know (at least) four,
and there are lists of many more.
I could go on,
but would be a bore,
so I'll let someone else
have the floor.
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
Do a Google search for "proof square root of 2 is irrational". One link, which has a number of proofs, is here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Square_root_of_2
$endgroup$
– marty cohen
May 22 '15 at 14:56
$begingroup$
I found your this post. Thank you.
$endgroup$
– Bumblebee
Jun 22 '15 at 7:43
1
$begingroup$
Another link with may proofs is cut-the-knot.org/proofs/sq_root.shtml
$endgroup$
– Gerry Myerson
Jul 21 '15 at 6:56
1
$begingroup$
When writing your answer, did you mean to rhyme each time [: )]?
$endgroup$
– Antonio DJC
Jun 11 '17 at 3:33
$begingroup$
One thing is certain: my rhyming is rarely inadverten t.
$endgroup$
– marty cohen
Jun 11 '17 at 4:49
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Proofs that $sqrt{2}$
is irrational.
I know (at least) four,
and there are lists of many more.
I could go on,
but would be a bore,
so I'll let someone else
have the floor.
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
Do a Google search for "proof square root of 2 is irrational". One link, which has a number of proofs, is here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Square_root_of_2
$endgroup$
– marty cohen
May 22 '15 at 14:56
$begingroup$
I found your this post. Thank you.
$endgroup$
– Bumblebee
Jun 22 '15 at 7:43
1
$begingroup$
Another link with may proofs is cut-the-knot.org/proofs/sq_root.shtml
$endgroup$
– Gerry Myerson
Jul 21 '15 at 6:56
1
$begingroup$
When writing your answer, did you mean to rhyme each time [: )]?
$endgroup$
– Antonio DJC
Jun 11 '17 at 3:33
$begingroup$
One thing is certain: my rhyming is rarely inadverten t.
$endgroup$
– marty cohen
Jun 11 '17 at 4:49
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Proofs that $sqrt{2}$
is irrational.
I know (at least) four,
and there are lists of many more.
I could go on,
but would be a bore,
so I'll let someone else
have the floor.
$endgroup$
Proofs that $sqrt{2}$
is irrational.
I know (at least) four,
and there are lists of many more.
I could go on,
but would be a bore,
so I'll let someone else
have the floor.
answered May 6 '15 at 3:50
marty cohenmarty cohen
75.7k549130
75.7k549130
1
$begingroup$
Do a Google search for "proof square root of 2 is irrational". One link, which has a number of proofs, is here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Square_root_of_2
$endgroup$
– marty cohen
May 22 '15 at 14:56
$begingroup$
I found your this post. Thank you.
$endgroup$
– Bumblebee
Jun 22 '15 at 7:43
1
$begingroup$
Another link with may proofs is cut-the-knot.org/proofs/sq_root.shtml
$endgroup$
– Gerry Myerson
Jul 21 '15 at 6:56
1
$begingroup$
When writing your answer, did you mean to rhyme each time [: )]?
$endgroup$
– Antonio DJC
Jun 11 '17 at 3:33
$begingroup$
One thing is certain: my rhyming is rarely inadverten t.
$endgroup$
– marty cohen
Jun 11 '17 at 4:49
add a comment |
1
$begingroup$
Do a Google search for "proof square root of 2 is irrational". One link, which has a number of proofs, is here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Square_root_of_2
$endgroup$
– marty cohen
May 22 '15 at 14:56
$begingroup$
I found your this post. Thank you.
$endgroup$
– Bumblebee
Jun 22 '15 at 7:43
1
$begingroup$
Another link with may proofs is cut-the-knot.org/proofs/sq_root.shtml
$endgroup$
– Gerry Myerson
Jul 21 '15 at 6:56
1
$begingroup$
When writing your answer, did you mean to rhyme each time [: )]?
$endgroup$
– Antonio DJC
Jun 11 '17 at 3:33
$begingroup$
One thing is certain: my rhyming is rarely inadverten t.
$endgroup$
– marty cohen
Jun 11 '17 at 4:49
1
1
$begingroup$
Do a Google search for "proof square root of 2 is irrational". One link, which has a number of proofs, is here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Square_root_of_2
$endgroup$
– marty cohen
May 22 '15 at 14:56
$begingroup$
Do a Google search for "proof square root of 2 is irrational". One link, which has a number of proofs, is here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Square_root_of_2
$endgroup$
– marty cohen
May 22 '15 at 14:56
$begingroup$
I found your this post. Thank you.
$endgroup$
– Bumblebee
Jun 22 '15 at 7:43
$begingroup$
I found your this post. Thank you.
$endgroup$
– Bumblebee
Jun 22 '15 at 7:43
1
1
$begingroup$
Another link with may proofs is cut-the-knot.org/proofs/sq_root.shtml
$endgroup$
– Gerry Myerson
Jul 21 '15 at 6:56
$begingroup$
Another link with may proofs is cut-the-knot.org/proofs/sq_root.shtml
$endgroup$
– Gerry Myerson
Jul 21 '15 at 6:56
1
1
$begingroup$
When writing your answer, did you mean to rhyme each time [: )]?
$endgroup$
– Antonio DJC
Jun 11 '17 at 3:33
$begingroup$
When writing your answer, did you mean to rhyme each time [: )]?
$endgroup$
– Antonio DJC
Jun 11 '17 at 3:33
$begingroup$
One thing is certain: my rhyming is rarely inadverten t.
$endgroup$
– marty cohen
Jun 11 '17 at 4:49
$begingroup$
One thing is certain: my rhyming is rarely inadverten t.
$endgroup$
– marty cohen
Jun 11 '17 at 4:49
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Robin Chapman gives 14 proofs of $$sum_{n=1}^{infty}{1over n^2}={pi^2over6}$$ here.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
This article provides a beautiful non-proof (Euler's proof) of this identity. Thank you.
$endgroup$
– Bumblebee
Jul 17 '15 at 8:50
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Robin Chapman gives 14 proofs of $$sum_{n=1}^{infty}{1over n^2}={pi^2over6}$$ here.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
This article provides a beautiful non-proof (Euler's proof) of this identity. Thank you.
$endgroup$
– Bumblebee
Jul 17 '15 at 8:50
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Robin Chapman gives 14 proofs of $$sum_{n=1}^{infty}{1over n^2}={pi^2over6}$$ here.
$endgroup$
Robin Chapman gives 14 proofs of $$sum_{n=1}^{infty}{1over n^2}={pi^2over6}$$ here.
answered Jul 15 '15 at 7:22
Gerry MyersonGerry Myerson
148k8152306
148k8152306
$begingroup$
This article provides a beautiful non-proof (Euler's proof) of this identity. Thank you.
$endgroup$
– Bumblebee
Jul 17 '15 at 8:50
add a comment |
$begingroup$
This article provides a beautiful non-proof (Euler's proof) of this identity. Thank you.
$endgroup$
– Bumblebee
Jul 17 '15 at 8:50
$begingroup$
This article provides a beautiful non-proof (Euler's proof) of this identity. Thank you.
$endgroup$
– Bumblebee
Jul 17 '15 at 8:50
$begingroup$
This article provides a beautiful non-proof (Euler's proof) of this identity. Thank you.
$endgroup$
– Bumblebee
Jul 17 '15 at 8:50
add a comment |
$begingroup$
For $ngeq kinmathbb{N}$, you can prove that $dfrac{n!}{k!cdot(n-k)!}$ is an integer from a combinatorial/counting argument. Establish that the formula gives the number of ways to choose a subset of $k$ from a set of $n$, and that automatically makes it an integer.
Or you can prove that $dfrac{n!}{k!cdot(n-k)!}$ is an integer by showing that the highest power of any prime $p$ dividing the denominator is less than the highest power of $p$ dividing the numerator.
Several proofs here.
$endgroup$
3
$begingroup$
You can also prove this using group actions: $S_n$ acts on the set ${1, 2, dotsc, n}$, and the stabilizer of any $k$-set from that set is $S_ktimes S_{n-k}$. So by the orbit-stabilizer theorem, the number of such $k$-sets is the number of orbits, which is $frac{|S_n|}{|S_k||S_{n-k}|} = frac{n!}{k!(n-k)!}$.
$endgroup$
– rogerl
Jul 27 '15 at 17:27
add a comment |
$begingroup$
For $ngeq kinmathbb{N}$, you can prove that $dfrac{n!}{k!cdot(n-k)!}$ is an integer from a combinatorial/counting argument. Establish that the formula gives the number of ways to choose a subset of $k$ from a set of $n$, and that automatically makes it an integer.
Or you can prove that $dfrac{n!}{k!cdot(n-k)!}$ is an integer by showing that the highest power of any prime $p$ dividing the denominator is less than the highest power of $p$ dividing the numerator.
Several proofs here.
$endgroup$
3
$begingroup$
You can also prove this using group actions: $S_n$ acts on the set ${1, 2, dotsc, n}$, and the stabilizer of any $k$-set from that set is $S_ktimes S_{n-k}$. So by the orbit-stabilizer theorem, the number of such $k$-sets is the number of orbits, which is $frac{|S_n|}{|S_k||S_{n-k}|} = frac{n!}{k!(n-k)!}$.
$endgroup$
– rogerl
Jul 27 '15 at 17:27
add a comment |
$begingroup$
For $ngeq kinmathbb{N}$, you can prove that $dfrac{n!}{k!cdot(n-k)!}$ is an integer from a combinatorial/counting argument. Establish that the formula gives the number of ways to choose a subset of $k$ from a set of $n$, and that automatically makes it an integer.
Or you can prove that $dfrac{n!}{k!cdot(n-k)!}$ is an integer by showing that the highest power of any prime $p$ dividing the denominator is less than the highest power of $p$ dividing the numerator.
Several proofs here.
$endgroup$
For $ngeq kinmathbb{N}$, you can prove that $dfrac{n!}{k!cdot(n-k)!}$ is an integer from a combinatorial/counting argument. Establish that the formula gives the number of ways to choose a subset of $k$ from a set of $n$, and that automatically makes it an integer.
Or you can prove that $dfrac{n!}{k!cdot(n-k)!}$ is an integer by showing that the highest power of any prime $p$ dividing the denominator is less than the highest power of $p$ dividing the numerator.
Several proofs here.
edited Apr 13 '17 at 12:20
Community♦
1
1
answered Jul 27 '15 at 16:40
alex.jordanalex.jordan
39.7k660122
39.7k660122
3
$begingroup$
You can also prove this using group actions: $S_n$ acts on the set ${1, 2, dotsc, n}$, and the stabilizer of any $k$-set from that set is $S_ktimes S_{n-k}$. So by the orbit-stabilizer theorem, the number of such $k$-sets is the number of orbits, which is $frac{|S_n|}{|S_k||S_{n-k}|} = frac{n!}{k!(n-k)!}$.
$endgroup$
– rogerl
Jul 27 '15 at 17:27
add a comment |
3
$begingroup$
You can also prove this using group actions: $S_n$ acts on the set ${1, 2, dotsc, n}$, and the stabilizer of any $k$-set from that set is $S_ktimes S_{n-k}$. So by the orbit-stabilizer theorem, the number of such $k$-sets is the number of orbits, which is $frac{|S_n|}{|S_k||S_{n-k}|} = frac{n!}{k!(n-k)!}$.
$endgroup$
– rogerl
Jul 27 '15 at 17:27
3
3
$begingroup$
You can also prove this using group actions: $S_n$ acts on the set ${1, 2, dotsc, n}$, and the stabilizer of any $k$-set from that set is $S_ktimes S_{n-k}$. So by the orbit-stabilizer theorem, the number of such $k$-sets is the number of orbits, which is $frac{|S_n|}{|S_k||S_{n-k}|} = frac{n!}{k!(n-k)!}$.
$endgroup$
– rogerl
Jul 27 '15 at 17:27
$begingroup$
You can also prove this using group actions: $S_n$ acts on the set ${1, 2, dotsc, n}$, and the stabilizer of any $k$-set from that set is $S_ktimes S_{n-k}$. So by the orbit-stabilizer theorem, the number of such $k$-sets is the number of orbits, which is $frac{|S_n|}{|S_k||S_{n-k}|} = frac{n!}{k!(n-k)!}$.
$endgroup$
– rogerl
Jul 27 '15 at 17:27
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Other examples of such many-proof theorems include:
1) Harmonic series diverges
There are at least 8 proofs of this fact based on different ideas.
The first four of them can be found under this link: https://proofwiki.org/wiki/Harmonic_Series_is_Divergent
The other four are of the following form:
"If a subseries diverges, then the whole series diverges too. Now let's prove that the subseries of harmonic series, that formed only by reciprocals of primes diverges..."
And there are at least four different ways to prove it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divergence_of_the_sum_of_the_reciprocals_of_the_primes
2) Variance of a random variable with support in $[0; 1]$ does not exceed $frac{1}{4}$
There are at least three proofs of this, based on different ideas: What is the largest possible variance of a random variable on $[0; 1]$?
3) No group is both a direct product and a direct product of non-trivial groups
There are at least three proofs of this, based on different ideas: Does there exist a group that is both a free product and a direct product of nontrivial groups?
4) $(mathbb{Q}, +)$ is not a direct product of any two non-trivial groups
There are at least three proofs of this, based on different ideas: Is $(mathbb{Q},+)$ the direct product of two non-trivial subgroups?
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Other examples of such many-proof theorems include:
1) Harmonic series diverges
There are at least 8 proofs of this fact based on different ideas.
The first four of them can be found under this link: https://proofwiki.org/wiki/Harmonic_Series_is_Divergent
The other four are of the following form:
"If a subseries diverges, then the whole series diverges too. Now let's prove that the subseries of harmonic series, that formed only by reciprocals of primes diverges..."
And there are at least four different ways to prove it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divergence_of_the_sum_of_the_reciprocals_of_the_primes
2) Variance of a random variable with support in $[0; 1]$ does not exceed $frac{1}{4}$
There are at least three proofs of this, based on different ideas: What is the largest possible variance of a random variable on $[0; 1]$?
3) No group is both a direct product and a direct product of non-trivial groups
There are at least three proofs of this, based on different ideas: Does there exist a group that is both a free product and a direct product of nontrivial groups?
4) $(mathbb{Q}, +)$ is not a direct product of any two non-trivial groups
There are at least three proofs of this, based on different ideas: Is $(mathbb{Q},+)$ the direct product of two non-trivial subgroups?
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Other examples of such many-proof theorems include:
1) Harmonic series diverges
There are at least 8 proofs of this fact based on different ideas.
The first four of them can be found under this link: https://proofwiki.org/wiki/Harmonic_Series_is_Divergent
The other four are of the following form:
"If a subseries diverges, then the whole series diverges too. Now let's prove that the subseries of harmonic series, that formed only by reciprocals of primes diverges..."
And there are at least four different ways to prove it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divergence_of_the_sum_of_the_reciprocals_of_the_primes
2) Variance of a random variable with support in $[0; 1]$ does not exceed $frac{1}{4}$
There are at least three proofs of this, based on different ideas: What is the largest possible variance of a random variable on $[0; 1]$?
3) No group is both a direct product and a direct product of non-trivial groups
There are at least three proofs of this, based on different ideas: Does there exist a group that is both a free product and a direct product of nontrivial groups?
4) $(mathbb{Q}, +)$ is not a direct product of any two non-trivial groups
There are at least three proofs of this, based on different ideas: Is $(mathbb{Q},+)$ the direct product of two non-trivial subgroups?
$endgroup$
Other examples of such many-proof theorems include:
1) Harmonic series diverges
There are at least 8 proofs of this fact based on different ideas.
The first four of them can be found under this link: https://proofwiki.org/wiki/Harmonic_Series_is_Divergent
The other four are of the following form:
"If a subseries diverges, then the whole series diverges too. Now let's prove that the subseries of harmonic series, that formed only by reciprocals of primes diverges..."
And there are at least four different ways to prove it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divergence_of_the_sum_of_the_reciprocals_of_the_primes
2) Variance of a random variable with support in $[0; 1]$ does not exceed $frac{1}{4}$
There are at least three proofs of this, based on different ideas: What is the largest possible variance of a random variable on $[0; 1]$?
3) No group is both a direct product and a direct product of non-trivial groups
There are at least three proofs of this, based on different ideas: Does there exist a group that is both a free product and a direct product of nontrivial groups?
4) $(mathbb{Q}, +)$ is not a direct product of any two non-trivial groups
There are at least three proofs of this, based on different ideas: Is $(mathbb{Q},+)$ the direct product of two non-trivial subgroups?
edited Mar 24 at 11:36
answered Feb 7 at 19:32
Yanior WegYanior Weg
2,96321549
2,96321549
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f1009922%2fwhat-are-the-theorems-in-mathematics-which-can-be-proved-using-completely-differ%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
$begingroup$
when are two proofs the same
$endgroup$
– Bumblebee
May 7 '15 at 6:38