# Frivolous theorem of arithmetic on Wikipedia

1. Apr 9, 2005

### Icebreaker

[SOLVED] Frivolous theorem of arithmetic on Wikipedia

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

There's a debate on whether we should delete this theorem from Wikipedia because some consider it "useless". Should it be deleted?

2. Apr 9, 2005

### Hurkyl

Staff Emeritus
How does one vote? Just edit the vote for deletion page?

3. Apr 9, 2005

4. Apr 9, 2005

5. Apr 9, 2005

### dextercioby

I think it should be put under a joke-section...

Daniel.

6. Apr 9, 2005

### Icebreaker

But that would raise the question on the "usefulness" of theorems. The way I see it is: if it's true, then it has to be said, no matter how trivial.

7. Apr 9, 2005

### dextercioby

Nope,it is a joke...As for "usefulness" of theorems,i don't see the connections...

Daniel.

8. Apr 9, 2005

### Icebreaker

The entry on wikipedia is being deleted under the pretense that it is not "useful". But then, there are some theorems that are not "useful" which aren't being deleted.

Last edited by a moderator: Apr 9, 2005
9. Apr 9, 2005

### dextercioby

"Useful" is a subjective term.Mathematics is the last place on Earth where u could have subjectivity...

So let's drop it...

Daniel.

10. Apr 9, 2005

### Icebreaker

Which is precisely why the entry should not be deleted under that pretense. But if you feel this way, you can go vote for deletion.

11. Apr 9, 2005

### Hurkyl

Staff Emeritus
Surely you've encountered facts in science that was entirely useless, except that it improved your perspective on things?

12. Apr 9, 2005

### Zurtex

Philistines!

Some people just don't understand the point of mathematics.

13. Apr 9, 2005

### shmoe

I would not call it useless but a humerous reminder of the limitations of finite computations. It happens often enough, piles upon piles of numerical data suggest a function behaves a certain way then it's shown that it does exactly what we expect it not to do outside the range of our fancy computers (e.g. Mertens conjecture).

14. Apr 9, 2005

### hello3719

:rofl: That is the most weak theorem ever, i mean cmon the definitions used are so empty. I bet it isn't a mathematician who suggested that theorem.
( Maybe a physicist, they like to play with "large numbers" :tongue2: )

15. Apr 9, 2005

### Icebreaker

Ah, but it's a theorem nevertheless!

16. Apr 9, 2005

### master_coda

Perhaps wikipedia needs pages describing theorems that tell us that 1+1=2, 1+2=3, 1+3=4, and so on.

17. Apr 9, 2005

### hello3719

yea, it is all about quantity in this world today, who cares about quality!

18. Apr 10, 2005

### Zurtex

And does MathWorld?

http://mathworld.wolfram.com/FrivolousTheoremofArithmetic.html

Oh and please do prove for me rigoursly that 1+1=2, but that's an equation not really a theorem.

You could describe every single number a physicist has ever used as small (I probabily would because I do a lot of cryptography) and still we know that most numbers are large, we have a nice theorem saying so

What has that got to do with this at all?

19. Apr 10, 2005

### arildno

Perhaps Wikipedia needs a section of "The most false theorems" as well:
Here's mine:
The primes are closed under multiplication..

20. Apr 10, 2005

### dextercioby

Zurtex,$1+1=2$ is an equality,not an equation...

Daniel.