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

  • B
  • Thread starter Thread starter Danijel
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Proofs
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the classification of proofs, particularly regarding the existence of multivariate non-negative polynomials that cannot be expressed as a sum of squares. Hilbert's indirect proof established that such polynomials must exist without providing a specific example, while Motzkin later offered a direct proof by presenting a simple counterexample. The conversation explores the nuances of direct versus indirect proofs, noting that proving the negation of a universal statement can blur these distinctions. Ultimately, the consensus is that Motzkin's example serves as a direct demonstration of the conjecture's falsehood, contrasting with Hilbert's analytical approach. The topic highlights the complexities of mathematical proof classifications.
Danijel
Messages
43
Reaction score
1
Does a proof by counterexample belong to direct or indirect type of proof?
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
Direct
With an indirect proof, you show that there can be no counter examples.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.)
 
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...
 
Thread 'Video on imaginary numbers and some queries'
Hi, I was watching the following video. I found some points confusing. Could you please help me to understand the gaps? Thanks, in advance! Question 1: Around 4:22, the video says the following. So for those mathematicians, negative numbers didn't exist. You could subtract, that is find the difference between two positive quantities, but you couldn't have a negative answer or negative coefficients. Mathematicians were so averse to negative numbers that there was no single quadratic...
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In Dirac’s Principles of Quantum Mechanics published in 1930 he introduced a “convenient notation” he referred to as a “delta function” which he treated as a continuum analog to the discrete Kronecker delta. The Kronecker delta is simply the indexed components of the identity operator in matrix algebra Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/what-exactly-is-diracs-delta-function/ by...
Thread 'Unit Circle Double Angle Derivations'
Here I made a terrible mistake of assuming this to be an equilateral triangle and set 2sinx=1 => x=pi/6. Although this did derive the double angle formulas it also led into a terrible mess trying to find all the combinations of sides. I must have been tired and just assumed 6x=180 and 2sinx=1. By that time, I was so mindset that I nearly scolded a person for even saying 90-x. I wonder if this is a case of biased observation that seeks to dis credit me like Jesus of Nazareth since in reality...
Back
Top