Can a Conjecture Be Proved Empirically?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter mhill
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Conjecture Proof
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the question of whether a conjecture can be proved through empirical means, specifically through observation and comparison of sums involving functions. The scope includes theoretical considerations and the nature of mathematical proof versus empirical validation.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Debate/contested, Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • One participant proposes that a conjecture could be supported by empirical methods, suggesting that comparing two sums and measuring the error could indicate the conjecture's validity.
  • Another participant requests clarification on the initial statements, pointing out ambiguities in the definitions of the sums involved.
  • A subsequent reply clarifies that the left sum is over f(n) and the right sum is over prime numbers p.
  • One participant notes that while empirical evidence can suggest a conjecture might be true, it does not constitute a formal proof, highlighting the possibility of pathological counterexamples.
  • The same participant references the existence of disproved mathematical ideas to illustrate that plausible ideas may not always hold true.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the validity of empirical evidence as a means of supporting conjectures. There is no consensus on whether empirical methods can serve as a substitute for formal proof.

Contextual Notes

There are limitations in the clarity of definitions and assumptions regarding the sums and functions discussed, which may affect the interpretation of the conjecture's validity.

mhill
Messages
180
Reaction score
1
can a conjecture be proved by 'empirical' means (observation) ??

i mean let us suppose that exists some functions named [tex]f_{i} (x)[/tex]

so [tex]\sum _{n=0}^{\infty} = \sum _{p} f(p)[/tex]

then an 'empirical' method would be to calculate the 2 sums and compare the error , let us suppose that the error made in the equation above is less or equal than 0.001

so [tex]|\sum _{n=0}^{\infty} - \sum _{p} f(p)| \le 0.001[/tex]

then , would this be simple coincidence or a fact that our conjecture is true ? , for example physicist and chemists work this way , as an approximation of a theory to our observed reality.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
It would help if your statements could be clarified. Your first sum is n=, but there is nothing being summed. Your second sum is for a function over p, without anything said about what p is.
 
Uh.. excuse me , the sum on the left is made over f(n) , the sum on the right is over all 'primes' p

[tex]\sum _{n=0}^{\infty}f(n) = \sum _{p} f(p)[/tex]
 
of course it is not a proof, it can give an indication that the theorem might be true and give you a reason to find a formal proof.

for example
the difference of the partial sums might eventually be smaller than some epsilon, but it might also always be larger than some lower bound

some ideas seem very plausible but might have very pathological counterexamples.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_disproved_mathematical_ideas
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
5K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
5K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
5K
Replies
1
Views
4K