Can multivariate non-negative polynomials always be written as a sum of squares?

  • B
  • Thread starter Danijel
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Proofs
In summary, the conversation discusses whether a proof by counterexample belongs to the direct or indirect type of proof. It is determined that a direct proof involves showing that something is wrong and proving the opposite, while an indirect proof involves disproving a universal statement. The conversation also gives an example of this in mathematics, where a simple example provided by Motzkin directly proves a conjecture to be false, while Hilbert's approach was indirect. The conversation concludes by stating that these categories of proof are somewhat arbitrary and do not have a deeper meaning.
  • #1
Danijel
43
1
Does a proof by counterexample belong to direct or indirect type of proof?
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Direct
With an indirect proof, you show that there can be no counter examples.
 
  • #3
That is what I was thinking. So basically, if we say, for example, show that something doesn't hold universally, our task is to disprove an universal statement, that is to prove the negation of the statement by giving an example. However, this still has some connection to the original statement which says that something holds universally, so I was also thinking that in some way this was indirect. However, if our theorem is (that is, if we look at the negation as the starting statement) to disprove something universal, then we are giving a direct proof by posing an example. It's a little bit confusing. I am still inclining towards the direct whatsoever.
 
  • #4
Keep in mind that these categories don't have a deeper meaning and the classification is somewhat arbitrary.
You can always say a proof of X (a direct proof) is showing "(not X) is wrong" and therefore proving X (which would make that an indirect proof) or vice versa.
 
  • #5
Something less abstract may help.

Suppose you're a great mathematician at the end of the 1800s and you show any polynomial with a single variable and real nonnegative coefficients can be written as a sum of squares. You conjecture, what about said polynomial except 2 variables or 3 or ... i.e. is it true that multivariate non-negative polynomial can always be written as a sum of squares?

Hilbert answered this as definitively "no" in 1888 using a lot of powerful analytical machinery but bit he didn't give an example.

About 80 years later Motzkin gave the first (very simple) example of a 2 variable non-negative polynomial that can't be written as a sum of squares. (The proof merely needs ##GM \leq AM##.) People would generally say he directly showed the conjecture to be false by a single example, whereas Hilbert's approach was indirect.

Put differently:
Hilbert showed that these 'rule breaker' polynomials must exist. (Indirect.)

Motzkin directly proved they do exist with a simple example. (Direct.)
 
  • #6
StoneTemplePython said:
Something less abstract may help.

Suppose you're a great mathematician at the end of the 1800s and you show any polynomial with a single variable and real nonnegative coefficients can be written as a sum of squares. You conjecture, what about said polynomial except 2 variables or 3 or ... i.e. is it true that multivariate non-negative polynomial can always be written as a sum of squares?

Hilbert answered this as definitively "no" in 1888 using a lot of powerful analytical machinery but bit he didn't give an example.

About 80 years later Motzkin gave the first (very simple) example of a 2 variable non-negative polynomial that can't be written as a sum of squares. (The proof merely needs ##GM \leq AM##.) People would generally say he directly showed the conjecture to be false by a single example, whereas Hilbert's approach was indirect.

Put differently:
Hilbert showed that these 'rule breaker' polynomials must exist. (Indirect.)

Motzkin directly proved they do exist with a simple example. (Direct.)
Wow, an excellent answer! Thank you...
 

What is "A rather simple question"?

"A rather simple question" refers to a common phrase used to describe a question that is straightforward and easy to answer.

Why is this question considered "rather" simple?

This question is considered "rather" simple because it often does not require much thought or research to answer. It is usually something that can be answered quickly and easily.

Can "A rather simple question" be difficult to answer?

While the phrase implies that the question is easy to answer, it is subjective and can vary depending on the individual's knowledge and understanding of the topic being asked about. What may be simple for one person may be difficult for another.

Is "A rather simple question" a good way to start a conversation?

Yes, "A rather simple question" can be a great way to start a conversation as it can help break the ice and get people talking. It can also be a good way to gauge someone's knowledge or interest in a particular topic.

How can I make sure I am understanding the answer to "A rather simple question" correctly?

To ensure you are understanding the answer to "A rather simple question" correctly, it's important to actively listen to the response and ask for clarification if needed. Additionally, doing some research on the topic can also help you better understand the answer and its context.

Similar threads

  • General Math
Replies
8
Views
2K
Replies
13
Views
1K
Replies
4
Views
980
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • General Math
Replies
1
Views
3K
Replies
3
Views
740
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • Precalculus Mathematics Homework Help
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
16
Views
7K
  • General Math
Replies
2
Views
1K
Back
Top