How do mathematicians come up with new proofs?

  • Context: High School 
  • Thread starter Thread starter docnet
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Proofs
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion explores the nature of mathematical proofs, particularly how mathematicians develop new proofs and the cognitive processes involved. It touches on the complexity of proofs, individual versus collaborative efforts, and the moments of insight that lead to breakthroughs in mathematical research.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant reflects on Yitang Zhang's claim of developing a proof in a short time, expressing disbelief at the complexity and length of the final proof.
  • Another participant suggests that while the key ideas of a proof can be summarized concisely, significant prior work and discussions contribute to the eventual breakthrough.
  • A participant notes that intense and continuous thought on a problem can lead to unconscious insights, where relationships between concepts become apparent.
  • One contributor shares personal experiences of having solutions come to them in dreams, emphasizing the importance of prior effort before such moments of clarity.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express varied perspectives on the nature of mathematical insight, with some emphasizing individual genius and others highlighting the role of prior work and collaboration. The discussion does not reach a consensus on how proofs are developed.

Contextual Notes

Participants acknowledge the complexity of proofs and the potential disconnect between initial insights and the extensive work required to formalize them. There is an implicit recognition of the limitations of individual understanding in grasping the entirety of complex proofs.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be of interest to mathematicians, students of mathematics, and anyone curious about the cognitive processes behind mathematical discovery and proof development.

docnet
Messages
796
Reaction score
486
TL;DR
How are research-level proofs written?
I watched an interview of Yitang Zhang and he said "the way to prove a finite limit of bounded gaps between primes came to him during ##30## minutes in an afternoon", and he worked alone and did not collaborate with others during his research time.

After looking up the proof, I am in disbelief he worked alone. What baffles is how one person could write ##50## pages of what feels like an enormously complicated and difficult mathematical maze to end up with the final result "so and so is the lower limit of so and so". I can't believe that so much work is done just to prove the final result because so many independent steps are taken, that don't seem to be obviously connected to the final result at all. But every step is nit-picky, deliberate, and brings the logic one step closer to the desired result. Are there mathematicians who could even read the entire proof and understand everything in it?

My main question is, do research-level proofs in mathematics such as "bounded gaps between primes", or "Harnack's Inequality for the Ricci Flow" or "Every simply connected, closed 3-manifold is homeomorphic to the 3-sphere." really come as a result of a one-person's genius, like everyone makes them out to be?
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
The key ideas of a proof can be summarized much shorter than the fully worked-out proof. You can give a mathematician working in that field a one-page summary (or maybe even shorter) and they'll be able to reproduce the proof based on that summary.

At the time of the "30 minutes in an afternoon", Zhang had already spent quite some time working on that problem and related problems. He had some preliminary results, he was obviously aware of the older results by his colleagues, had discussed the problem with them many times and so on. At the end of these 30 minutes he didn't have the 50 pages of proof written down, but he had an idea how to combine all these things, plus a few things he expected to be able to proof later, in a way that would lead to a proof.
 
  • Like
  • Informative
Likes   Reactions: suremarc, Vanadium 50 and berkeman
If one thinks hard and continuously about something for a long time, it seems that the mind works on its own unconsciously. Ideas just pop up seemingly out of nowhere. One "sees" the relationship. However working out the details may take a huge amount of work.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: DaTario, weirdoguy, docnet and 3 others
lavinia said:
Ideas just pop up seemingly out of nowhere.

I'm not a "working scientist" example, but I had numerous situations, where the solution to a problem simply came to me during a... dream.
 
weirdoguy said:
during a... dream.
In a jacuzzi for me...

(but as pointed out before, I'd put in hundreds of hours on that problem before the final aha moment)
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • · Replies 33 ·
2
Replies
33
Views
8K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
6K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K