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

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around a participant's claim of discovering new proofs for the Pythagorean theorem, including a general proof and a specific case for 45-degree angles. The participant seeks advice on how to publish these proofs in a scientific magazine.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • A participant claims to have found a new, beautiful proof of the Pythagorean theorem that connects different branches of mathematics.
  • Another participant suggests writing a scientific paper and submitting it to arXiv or a magazine like "New Scientist."
  • Some participants express skepticism about the interest of professional journals in publishing a proof of a well-known theorem.
  • One participant mentions a similar proof by Professor Michail Hardy from 1998, indicating that while the ideas may be similar, the main concept is different.
  • There is a discussion about the nature of new proofs versus established theorems, with some arguing that the moral duty to publish may not apply to a theorem that is thousands of years old.
  • Several participants suggest that pedagogical journals might be more appropriate for publishing such proofs.
  • One participant questions the validity of the claim that no one has found these proofs before, prompting further exploration of existing literature.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a mix of support and skepticism regarding the novelty and publishability of the proofs. There is no consensus on whether the proofs are sufficiently interesting for professional journals, and multiple competing views exist on the value of discussing new proofs of a well-established theorem.

Contextual Notes

Some participants reference existing proofs and publications related to the Pythagorean theorem, indicating that the landscape of published proofs is extensive. The discussion also touches on the nature of mathematical curiosity and the motivations behind publishing new proofs.

  • #31
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.

Just a joke. I guess this could be said of any forum.
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
  • #32
KrisOhn said:
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.

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

duty_calls.png


:biggrin:
 
  • #33
micromass said:
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
 
  • #34
Maths Lover said:
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! :smile:

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 :redface:
 
  • #35
Maths Lover said:
first , I wonder about a abbrevitation all of you had used ! what does " OP " denote to ?!
Original poster, or original post according to context.
 
  • #36
micromass said:
Sorry for hijacking your thread here anyway :redface:

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

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

explain please ?!
 
  • #37
Jimmy Snyder said:
Original poster, or original post according to context.

thank you , you made it obviousto me :)
 
  • #38
Maths Lover said:
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.
 
  • #39
@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 ?
 
  • #40
micromass said:
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 :)
 
  • #41
Maths Lover said:
@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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #42
I was told that the original proof of the Riesz Representation theorem was 300 pages long. I don't know if it's true.
 
  • #43
micromass said:
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 ,

:))
 
  • #44
Maths Lover said:
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.
 
  • #45
Jimmy Snyder said:
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 ! "
 
  • #46
micromass said:
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 ! ?
 
  • #48
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #50
micromass said:
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 ?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #51
Hey Maths lover, just out of curiosity what is your native language?
 
  • #52
I don't know where websites are getting the figure of 98 proofs as the current number. A geometry text I have preceeds one proof with the following introduction:

"There are hundreds of known proofs of the Pythagorean theorem. A complilation containing more than 350 proofs appears in The Pythagorean Proposition by Elisha Scott Loomis published by the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics."

Googling that book, The Pythagorean Proposition, I find:

http://mathlair.allfunandgames.ca/pythprop.php

which states it has 370 proofs. And is also a difficult book to get hold of. The author of that site, MathLair, say he has reproduced portions of it there, since it's in the public domain.

Note also that, based on this book, Guiness Book of Records calls the Pythagorean Theorem the "most proved theorem".
 
  • #53
The 98 comes from the second verse of the song 99 bottles of proof on the wall (or is that beer)...
 
  • #54
Galteeth said:
Hey Maths lover, just out of curiosity what is your native language?

I'm Egyptian and My native language is Arabic
 

Similar threads

Insights Fermat's Last Theorem
  • · Replies 105 ·
4
Replies
105
Views
9K
High School Fermat's Last Theorem; unacceptable proof, why?
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
Undergrad Is the proof of the KRK endgame theorem rigorous and original?
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
Undergrad Disproving Pythagorean Theorem
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
11K
Undergrad Fundamental theorem of arithmetic from Jordan-Hölder theorem
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
Undergrad Contrapositive of theorem and issue with proof
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Undergrad Can New Theorems Predict Incomplete 5x5 Magic Square Solutions?
  • · Replies 68 ·
3
Replies
68
Views
12K
Graduate Question about proof of Great Picard Theorem
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
Undergrad Uniqueness of reduced row echelon form (proof verification)
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Undergrad Is an algorithm for a proof required to halt?
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K