I found out new proof of Pythagorean theorem , how can I publish it ?

In summary, a new proof for the Pythagorean theorem has been found. The proof is similar to one found by Professor Michail Hardy in 1998, but the main idea of the proof is different. However, the proof might not be interesting enough for a professional journal.
  • #1
Maths Lover
68
0
Hello, I know that ,their is more than 97 proofs for Pythagorean theorem .

but I think that I found new one ! which is very beautiful , also , this proof show us the relation between 2 branches of maths , and how can we look to one object by diffrent ways , also this proof shows us that we can play with the theorems !

I really wonder How can I publish something like this in a scientific magazine ?!

I found it more than 6 months , but I preferred to keep it secret , but now , I prefer to publish it .

also , I have found out another proof for Pythagorean theorem !
and the second one is so simple ! I can't believe that no one hadn't thought in something like this before !

also , I find out new proof for a special case when the two angels equals 45 degrees

so I have 2 proofs for the general cases , one proof for a special case ,

any ideas of how can I publish this ?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Write the scientific paper. Put it on arxiv. Send to some university or perhaps "New Scientist" can help you? :)

If you don't mind I would love to see it ! And I promise I won't steal ;) Besides - There's nothing to gain from that :) Any new proofs of the pythagorean are simply just curiosities :) So don't be too afraid to show it around :)

However if you do come across the proof of "N = NP ?" Then don't tell anyone ! :D
 
  • #3
Good job with the proofs! Are you certain that no one has found these proofs before?
 
  • #4
Sorry to say it, but no professional journal is going to be very interested in a proof of this.

However, there might be other journals where you can publish your proof. For examples, math teachers and educators often have journals as well where they publish articles. I think your proof might be interesting enough to publish there!
 
  • #5
Runei said:
Write the scientific paper. Put it on arxiv. Send to some university or perhaps "New Scientist" can help you? :)

If you don't mind I would love to see it ! And I promise I won't steal ;) Besides - There's nothing to gain from that :) Any new proofs of the pythagorean are simply just curiosities :) So don't be too afraid to show it around :)

However if you do come across the proof of "N = NP ?" Then don't tell anyone ! :D

and what does
N = NP
denotes for ?!

can you expalin ?
 
  • #7
It was a joke :)

"N = NP?" is one of the big mathematical problems in computer science. You can read more about it here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P_versus_NP_problem

But it has nothing to do with your proof :)
And as micromass says: I don't think any professional journal will want to publish it.
 
  • #8
bcbwilla said:
Good job with the proofs! Are you certain that no one has found these proofs before?

I searched too much , I found a proof which is simmilar to mine , but the main Idea of my proof is so diffrent , but they are quite simmilar ,

this proof which is simmilar to mine was found out by proffesor Michail Hardy in 1998 !
he is a proffesor in one of american universties , he published it in a magazin called " Mathematical intellegence "
 
  • #9
micromass said:
Sorry to say it, but no professional journal is going to be very interested in a proof of this.

However, there might be other journals where you can publish your proof. For examples, math teachers and educators often have journals as well where they publish articles. I think your proof might be interesting enough to publish there!

in this case !maybe, I prefer to not publish it !

but can I know why is it not interesting ?
 
  • #10
Runei said:
It was a joke :)

"N = NP?" is one of the big mathematical problems in computer science. You can read more about it here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P_versus_NP_problem

But it has nothing to do with your proof :)
And as micromass says: I don't think any professional journal will want to publish it.

ok :)

there are other theorems which I have new proof for it , but , I don't know the right english words to talk about it , I will try to talk about these one later ,
 
  • #12
If your proof is valid, and generally new, I certainly think that several journals might be interested to publish it as an amusing curiosity.
 
  • Like
Likes DaTario
  • #13
Maths Lover said:
..
I found it more than 6 months , but I preferred to keep it secret , but now , I prefer to publish it ...

I hope it's not too far away from the topic. But in general, if you happen to get indisposed and unable to present new scientific ideas, wouldn't they get lost again?

I think it's the moral duty to discuss new ideas and make sure that they're not lost.

But you probably find out that the interest in new ideas is such, that nobody wants to steal them. On the contrary, it's probably very hard to sell them.
 
  • #14
How about publishing it in "Mathematical Intelligencer"?
 
  • #15
Andre said:
I think it's the moral duty to discuss new ideas and make sure that they're not lost.

We're talking about a proof of the Pythagorean theorem here, not some kind of revolutionary new mathematical theory that will change mathematics forever. There is no moral duty about discussing a theorem which has been known for thousands of years.
 
  • #16
micromass said:
We're talking about a proof of the Pythagorean theorem here, not some kind of revolutionary new mathematical theory that will change mathematics forever. There is no moral duty about discussing a theorem which has been known for thousands of years.
It's not the theorem that's new, it's the proof.
 
  • #17
Jimmy Snyder said:
It's not the theorem that's new, its the proof.

I know. The same remark holds. Nobody is going to be seriously interested in a proof of a mathematical theorem that is thousands years old. It's a nice curiosity, that's all. Things like "moral duty" is not applicable here.
 
  • #18
micromass said:
I know. The same remark holds. Nobody is going to be seriously interested in a proof of a mathematical theorem that is thousands years old. It's a nice curiosity, that's all. Things like "moral duty" is not applicable here.
Then how come 97 proofs got published?
 
  • #20
Jimmy Snyder said:
Then how come 97 proofs got published?

Where did they get published?? In a research journal of mathematics?? I kind of doubt that.
 
  • #21
micromass said:
Where did they get published?? In a research journal of mathematics?? I kind of doubt that.
The OP already mentioned the Mathematical Intelligencer. Here's another.
As a corollary he gives a new proof of the Pythagorean theorem in Euclidean geometry.
American Mathematical Monthly.
 
  • #22
micromass said:
Where did they get published?? In a research journal of mathematics?? I kind of doubt that.

Anyway, I looked it up. The list of 98 proofs is here: http://www.cut-the-knot.org/pythagoras/index.shtml

Here are the references:

References

J. D. Birkhoff and R. Beatley, Basic Geometry, AMS Chelsea Pub, 2000
W. Dunham, The Mathematical Universe, John Wiley & Sons, NY, 1994.
W. Dunham, Journey through Genius, Penguin Books, 1991
H. Eves, Great Moments in Mathematics Before 1650, MAA, 1983
G. N. Frederickson, Dissections: Plane & Fancy, Cambridge University Press, 1997
G. N. Frederickson, Hinged Dissections: Swinging & Twisting, Cambridge University Press, 2002
E. S. Loomis, The Pythagorean Proposition, NCTM, 1968
R. B. Nelsen, Proofs Without Words, MAA, 1993
R. B. Nelsen, Proofs Without Words II, MAA, 2000
J. A. Paulos, Beyond Numeracy, Vintage Books, 1992
T. Pappas, The Joy of Mathematics, Wide World Publishing, 1989
C. Pritchard, The Changing Shape of Geomtetry, Cambridge University Press, 2003
F. J. Swetz, From Five Fingers to Infinity, Open Court, 1996, third printing

On Internet

Pythagoras' Theorem, by Bill Casselman, The University of British Columbia.
Eric's Treasure Trove features more than 10 proofs
A proof of the Pythagorean Theorem by Liu Hui (third century AD)
An interesting page from which I borrowed Proof #28

Most of these seem high-school or pop-sci books in mathematics (nothing wrong with that). But it agrees with my conclusion that proofs of the Pythagorean theorem tends to be more curiosity. People like to see new proofs that are elegant, but they are not really interesting for professional mathematicians nowadays. Discovering a new proof might be very good for the OP (don't be discouraged at all!) and might be interesting to read, but it's not like it's essential to mankind to share it.
 
  • #23
Jimmy Snyder said:
The OP already mentioned the Mathematical Intelligencer. Here's another.
As a corollary he gives a new proof of the Pythagorean theorem in Euclidean geometry.
American Mathematical Monthly.

That's not really a research journal, is it??

The Monthly's readers expect a high standard of exposition; they expect articles to inform, stimulate, challenge, enlighten, and even entertain. Monthly articles are meant to be read, enjoyed, and discussed, rather than just archived. Articles may be expositions of old or new results, historical or biographical essays, speculations or definitive treatments, broad developments, or explorations of a single application. Novelty and generality are far less important than clarity of exposition and broad appeal. Appropriate figures, diagrams, and photographs are encouraged.
 
  • #24
Maths Lover, please don't let anyone discourage you. I think new proofs of old theorems are important. If you do publish, let us know where.
 
  • #25
One question I had was the OP said he grabbed ideas from two different branches of math to do the proof which means it could be interesting if we knew what branches he borrowed from.

And the contrary question then were the ideas borrowed proved / predicated on the pythagorean theorem being true?
 
  • #26
micromass said:
Andre said:
I think it's the moral duty to discuss new ideas and make sure that they're not lost..

We're talking about a proof of the Pythagorean theorem here, not some kind of revolutionary new mathematical theory that will change mathematics forever. There is no moral duty about discussing a theorem which has been known for thousands of years.

That's clear, but that doesn't change the general idea.
 
  • #27
Jimmy Snyder said:
Maths Lover, please don't let anyone discourage you. I think new proofs of old theorems are important. If you do publish, let us know where.

I agree with this. And I am not discouraging him (if you were talking about me). I find it very good of him that he found a novel proof. Not many people can say that they found such a thing! And I'm sure many people will be interested.

But what I'm saying is true. It's not really important compared to the vast amounts of mathematical research published today. And it's certainly not true that he has a "moral obligation" or a "duty" to publish.

The fact that I said that a proof is not really seen as very important does not contradict the fact that the OP did something very nice.
 
  • #28
Andre said:
...
I think it's the moral duty to discuss new ideas and make sure that they're not lost.
...

micromass said:
And it's certainly not true that he has a "moral obligation" or a "duty" to publish.
.

Maybe that's not quite the same?
 
  • #29
Andre said:
Maybe that's not quite the same?

I'm not really seeing the difference.
 
  • #30
I said 'discuss', you said 'publish'

Maybe I should elaborate, but keeping new work on science "secret", as the OP stated, that triggered my reaction. Anything, no matter if it's the 243th proof of Pythagoras or if it's the theory of everything, I think, is very unsocial. Sure, keeping engineering solutions secret for patent reasons, fine. Of course, but if one happens to stumble onto something new, and of course scientifically legally new and there is no economical reason to shut up, you should at least inform others, who can carry on if required.

Maybe one day, we can just progress again with truth.
 
Last edited:
  • #31
I'm going to publish a paper which states that for any given thread in PF, the larger the thread grows, the probability of a pedantic argument approaches 1.

Just a joke. I guess this could be said of any forum.
 
  • #32
KrisOhn said:
I'm going to publish a paper which states that for any given thread in PF, the larger the thread grows, the probability of a pedantic argument approaches 1.

Just a joke. I guess this could be said of any forum.

duty_calls.png


:biggrin:
 
  • #33
micromass said:
I agree with this. And I am not discouraging him (if you were talking about me). I find it very good of him that he found a novel proof. Not many people can say that they found such a thing! And I'm sure many people will be interested.

But what I'm saying is true. It's not really important compared to the vast amounts of mathematical research published today. And it's certainly not true that he has a "moral obligation" or a "duty" to publish.

The fact that I said that a proof is not really seen as very important does not contradict the fact that the OP did something very nice.


first , I wonder about a abbrevitation all of you had used ! what does " OP " denote to ?!

I think that you are right , this proof will not be interesting thing for professionals , professionals are interested in more dilicated things ,

anyway , I think that the most important thing that I enjoyed to find this proof , I really enjoyed ,
yes , it's simmilar to one of the proofs which was found out since 1998 ! but the main idea is diffrent , I'm 17 years old now , I think that it was a good thing that try to prove something like this , , I proved lot's of theorems in Algebra and Calculus and geometry , and that's fun !


when I study maths and play with it ! the most important thing for me is that I enjoy playing with maths ! that's enough for me !

I hope that I didn't write so much :)

greetings

Maths Lover
 
  • #34
Maths Lover said:
first , I wonder about a abbrevitation all of you had used ! what does " OP " denote to ?!

It refers to "Original Post" or "Original poster". In this thread, it is you! :smile:

anyway , I think that the most important thing that I enjoyed to find this proof , I really enjoyed ,
yes , it's simmilar to one of the proofs which was found out since 1998 ! but the main idea is diffrent , I'm 17 years old now , I think that it was a good thing that try to prove something like this , , I proved lot's of theorems in Algebra and Calculus and geometry , and that's fun !


when I study maths and play with it ! the most important thing for me is that I enjoy playing with maths ! that's enough for me !

Ah, but that is absolutely right! You should do math primarily because you enjoy it. Who cares if you prove anything fancy! You have the right attitude!

Again, proving a theorem all on your own is not an easy feat. It's really well done of you. I don't think I could have done such a thing at 17 years old (and I don't think I could do it now either). So you should absolutely feel good about what you did.

Sorry for hijacking your thread here anyway :redface:
 
  • #35
Maths Lover said:
first , I wonder about a abbrevitation all of you had used ! what does " OP " denote to ?!
Original poster, or original post according to context.
 
<H2>What is the process for publishing new proof of Pythagorean theorem?</H2><p>The process for publishing new proof of Pythagorean theorem involves several steps. First, the scientist must write a paper outlining their proof and its significance. This paper should include a detailed explanation of the proof, any supporting evidence or data, and a discussion of its implications. Next, the scientist must submit their paper to a reputable peer-reviewed journal in the field of mathematics. The paper will then undergo a rigorous review process by other experts in the field, who will provide feedback and recommendations for improvement. If the paper is accepted, it will be published in the journal and made available to the scientific community.</p><H2>How long does it take to publish new proof of Pythagorean theorem?</H2><p>The time it takes to publish new proof of Pythagorean theorem can vary. It typically takes several months to write the paper and submit it to a journal. The review process can also take several months, depending on the complexity of the proof and the number of revisions required. Overall, the process can take anywhere from 6 months to a year or more.</p><H2>Can I publish my proof in any journal?</H2><p>No, it is important to choose a reputable peer-reviewed journal in the field of mathematics for publishing new proof of Pythagorean theorem. This ensures that the proof will undergo a thorough review process by experts in the field and will be recognized by the scientific community.</p><H2>What if my proof is rejected by the journal?</H2><p>If your proof is rejected by the journal, it is important to carefully consider the feedback and recommendations provided by the reviewers. You may need to make revisions or gather additional evidence to strengthen your proof before resubmitting it to another journal. It is also possible to appeal the decision or submit the proof to a different journal for consideration.</p><H2>Do I retain ownership of my proof after publishing it?</H2><p>Yes, as the creator of the proof, you retain ownership of your work even after it is published in a journal. However, other scientists may use or build upon your proof in their own research, as long as they properly cite your work. It is important to protect your intellectual property by copyrighting your proof and clearly stating the terms of use.</p>

What is the process for publishing new proof of Pythagorean theorem?

The process for publishing new proof of Pythagorean theorem involves several steps. First, the scientist must write a paper outlining their proof and its significance. This paper should include a detailed explanation of the proof, any supporting evidence or data, and a discussion of its implications. Next, the scientist must submit their paper to a reputable peer-reviewed journal in the field of mathematics. The paper will then undergo a rigorous review process by other experts in the field, who will provide feedback and recommendations for improvement. If the paper is accepted, it will be published in the journal and made available to the scientific community.

How long does it take to publish new proof of Pythagorean theorem?

The time it takes to publish new proof of Pythagorean theorem can vary. It typically takes several months to write the paper and submit it to a journal. The review process can also take several months, depending on the complexity of the proof and the number of revisions required. Overall, the process can take anywhere from 6 months to a year or more.

Can I publish my proof in any journal?

No, it is important to choose a reputable peer-reviewed journal in the field of mathematics for publishing new proof of Pythagorean theorem. This ensures that the proof will undergo a thorough review process by experts in the field and will be recognized by the scientific community.

What if my proof is rejected by the journal?

If your proof is rejected by the journal, it is important to carefully consider the feedback and recommendations provided by the reviewers. You may need to make revisions or gather additional evidence to strengthen your proof before resubmitting it to another journal. It is also possible to appeal the decision or submit the proof to a different journal for consideration.

Do I retain ownership of my proof after publishing it?

Yes, as the creator of the proof, you retain ownership of your work even after it is published in a journal. However, other scientists may use or build upon your proof in their own research, as long as they properly cite your work. It is important to protect your intellectual property by copyrighting your proof and clearly stating the terms of use.

Similar threads

  • General Discussion
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • Linear and Abstract Algebra
Replies
21
Views
1K
  • Linear and Abstract Algebra
Replies
3
Views
965
  • General Discussion
2
Replies
49
Views
7K
Replies
50
Views
4K
  • Linear and Abstract Algebra
Replies
2
Views
494
Replies
13
Views
1K
Replies
12
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
695
Back
Top