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

[Maths Lover]

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 ?

 

[Runei]

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

 

[bcbwilla]

Good job with the proofs! Are you certain that no one has found these proofs before?

 

[micromass]

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!

 

[Maths Lover]

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 ?

 

[micromass]

and what does
N = NP
denotes for ?!

can you expalin ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P_versus_NP_problem

 

[Runei]

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.

 

[Maths Lover]

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 "

 

[Maths Lover]

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 ?

 

[Maths Lover]

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 ,

 

[Hepth]

Heres a list of some for those interested:
http://www.cut-the-knot.org/pythagoras/index.shtml

 

[arildno]

If your proof is valid, and generally new, I certainly think that several journals might be interested to publish it as an amusing curiosity.

 

[Andre]

..
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.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

How about publishing it in "Mathematical Intelligencer"?

 

[micromass]

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.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

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.

 

[micromass]

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.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

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?

 

[robphy]

Depending on the method of the proof,
it may be that there is new way of thinking about the problem
and others similar to it.

I think a pedagogical journal might be interested in it.
Have a look at what gets published in, say, College Mathematics Journal.
http://www.maa.org/pubs/cmj_nov12.html
http://www.maa.org/pubs/cmj_may12.html

 

[micromass]

Then how come 97 proofs got published?

Where did they get published?? In a research journal of mathematics?? I kind of doubt that.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

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.

 

[micromass]

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.

 

[micromass]

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.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

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.

 

[jedishrfu]

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?

 

[Andre]

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.

 

[micromass]

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.

 

[Andre]

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

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

Maybe that's not quite the same?

 

[micromass]

Maybe that's not quite the same?

I'm not really seeing the difference.

 

[Andre]

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.

 

[KrisOhn]

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.

Spoiler

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

 

[micromass]

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.

Spoiler

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

 

[Maths Lover]

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

 

[micromass]

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!

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

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

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

Original poster, or original post according to context.

 

[Maths Lover]

Sorry for hijacking your thread here anyway

I didn't understand what you really want to say !

how can you Hijack my thread ?! is it a puzzle ?

explain please ?!

 

[Maths Lover]

Original poster, or original post according to context.

thank you , you made it obviousto me :)

 

[micromass]

I didn't understand what you really want to say !

how can you Hijack my thread ?! is it a puzzle ?

explain please ?!

Hijacking a thread is when you start a pedantic argument about something useless that is not really what the OP wants to talk about.

 

[Maths Lover]

@Micromass

so , any new proof for any theorem will be treated with the same way ?

or some theorems is diffrent from others ?


what about main theorms in calculus ?

 

[Maths Lover]

Hijacking a thread is when you start a pedantic argument about something useless that is not really what the OP wants to talk about.

ok :)

it's not a problem , I think that your speech wasn't " pedantic argument " , but it made somethings obvious

thank you :)

 

[micromass]

@micromass

so , any new proof for any theorem will be treated with the same way ?

or some theorems is diffrent from others ?


what about main theorms in calculus ?

No, I wouldn't say that they will all be treated the same way. I guess it depends on the proof itself. If the proof is really novel and provides some kind of idea that can be generalized, then it might be interesting to professionals. Or when the proof illustrates some kind of abstract theory.

A famous example is the insolvability of the quintic. This was originally proven by Abel and Ruffini. But later, Galois proved it using the methods of (what is now called) Galois theory. From a certain point of view, the theorem was already proven. But the proof Galois gave is very intricate and beautiful. Furthermore, it gives exactly a criterium of when a polynomial can be solved or not. And the same method can be generalized to other settings as well (such as integration theory). Finally, Galois theory is one of the most elegant mathematics known to man! Despite Galois theory not really proving anything novel, it is still one of the most important theories in mathematics out there.

If you are interested in Abel's theorem, then I highly recommend the following book: https://www.amazon.com/dp/1402021860/?tag=pfamazon01-20
It is suitable for high school students who are interested in higher level math. It introduces elegant theories such as groups and Riemann surfaces and it culminates with Abel's theorem.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

I was told that the original proof of the Riesz Representation theorem was 300 pages long. I don't know if it's true.

 

[Maths Lover]

No, I wouldn't say that they will all be treated the same way. I guess it depends on the proof itself. If the proof is really novel and provides some kind of idea that can be generalized, then it might be interesting to professionals. Or when the proof illustrates some kind of abstract theory.

A famous example is the insolvability of the quintic. This was originally proven by Abel and Ruffini. But later, Galois proved it using the methods of (what is now called) Galois theory. From a certain point of view, the theorem was already proven. But the proof Galois gave is very intricate and beautiful. Furthermore, it gives exactly a criterium of when a polynomial can be solved or not. And the same method can be generalized to other settings as well (such as integration theory). Finally, Galois theory is one of the most elegant mathematics known to man! Despite Galois theory not really proving anything novel, it is still one of the most important theories in mathematics out there.

If you are interested in Abel's theorem, then I highly recommend the following book: https://www.amazon.com/dp/1402021860/?tag=pfamazon01-20
It is suitable for high school students who are interested in higher level math. It introduces elegant theories such as groups and Riemann surfaces and it culminates with Abel's theorem.

I heared about Galois theory for 2 years .
as you know " I think that you know " that I study Abstract Algebra nowdays from Dummit and foote , and Galois theory is the topic of 14th chapter , and I'm very excited to reach this chapter but I still in the second one ,

 

[micromass]

I heared about Galois theory for 2 years .
as you know " I think that you know " that I study Abstract Algebra nowdays from Dummit and foote , and Galois theory is the topic of 14th chapter , and I'm very excited to reach this chapter but I still in the second one ,

Ah, yes, I should have remembered! But yes, Galois theory is very exciting. I just hope Dummit and Foote cover it the right way and don't try to obfusciate things. A lot of textbooks on Galois theory seem to have this problem.

 

[Maths Lover]

I was told that the original proof of the Riesz Representation theorem was 300 pages long. I don't know if it's true.

300 pages ! that's great ! and very comblicated too !

I know the fermat last theorems needed 100 page from prof wiles to be written !

the funny thing that I tried to find new proof to this Big theorem ! of course I failed " until now at least ! "

 

[Maths Lover]

Ah, yes, I should have remembered! But yes, Galois theory is very exciting. I just hope Dummit and Foote cover it the right way and don't try to obfusciate things. A lot of textbooks on Galois theory seem to have this problem.

I hope the same :)

if he did , does artin cover it well ? or he obfuscated it ! ?

 

[jedishrfu]

Speaking of proofs don't forget the book: Proofs from The Book

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proofs_from_THE_BOOK

 

[micromass]

I hope the same :)

if he did , does artin cover it well ? or he obfuscated it ! ?

I don't really remember his treatment well. But I really like Artin, so I guess he did a good job.

If you're looking for beautiful treatments of Galois theory, then the following books are exellent:

https://www.amazon.com/dp/0486623424/?tag=pfamazon01-20 (this is not the same Artin as the one who wrote the algebra book)

https://www.amazon.com/dp/1402021860/?tag=pfamazon01-20

 

[micromass]

Speaking of proofs don't forget the book: Proofs from The Book

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proofs_from_THE_BOOK

Ah yes! One of the most beautiful math books out there!

 

[Maths Lover]

I don't really remember his treatment well. But I really like Artin, so I guess he did a good job.

If you're looking for beautiful treatments of Galois theory, then the following books are exellent:

https://www.amazon.com/dp/0486623424/?tag=pfamazon01-20 (this is not the same Artin as the one who wrote the algebra book)

https://www.amazon.com/dp/1402021860/?tag=pfamazon01-20

that's great :)
but as you know , I have to study Group theory and Field theory first :)
I think that it's not easy job , is it ?