Proof of mathematical theorems

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter kent davidge
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Mathematical Proof
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the nature of mathematical proofs and the conditions under which theorems can be proven. Participants explore the implications of proof, truth, and the resources required for proving mathematical theorems, including the role of computational tools.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions whether any theorem in mathematics can be proven with just a pen and paper or a super-computer, suggesting that some proofs may not be straightforward.
  • Another participant challenges the understanding of mathematical proof, implying a lack of clarity on the topic.
  • Some participants assert that while a theorem is defined as a well-formed formula with an existing proof, the concepts of "truth" and "provability" are distinct and do not imply one another.
  • There is a claim that "provable" implies "true," but this is contested by noting that inconsistencies in a system can lead to proving false statements.
  • Concerns are raised about the reliability of claims made by authors regarding theorems, suggesting that false claims can exist and that proofs should be provided to substantiate such claims.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the relationship between provability and truth, as well as the reliability of mathematical claims. There is no consensus on these issues, and multiple competing perspectives remain present in the discussion.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight the limitations of relying solely on computational tools for proofs and the potential for false claims in mathematical literature. The discussion does not resolve these complexities.

kent davidge
Messages
931
Reaction score
56
My question is simple. Can one prove any theorem in mathematics by having only a pen and a paper, or a super-computer for that matter?

Since math is essentially all about theorems, and we usually take them as true. I guess someone went in and proved them at some point in our history. But some of them are rather misteryous and I don't think their proof reduces to writing down equations and axioms.
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
Are you the same @kent davidge , who's posted questions about general relativity? How is it that you don't understand the nature of mathematical proof?
 
Stephen Tashi said:
Are you the same @kent davidge , who's posted questions about general relativity? How is it that you don't understand the nature of mathematical proof?
yes, but it is the other way. I should not stick my nose everywhere. I'm having my first classes of special relativity in the uni, but you know, general relativity and quantum mechanics are more interesting.
 
kent davidge said:
Can one prove any theorem in mathematics by having only a pen and a paper, or a super-computer for that matter?
You don't need computation capacities, as these are only rarely used, mostly to cover a finite number of exceptional cases. In general, you cannot proof any theorem (cp. Gödel), but you don't know in advance and most common theorems can be proven or disproven by a counterexample. Whether this takes minutes or centuries is another question. And you probably should have access to a good library and many journals!
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: kent davidge
kent davidge said:
Can one prove any theorem in mathematics by having only a pen and a paper, or a super-computer for that matter?
By definition, a theorem is a well formed formula for which a proof exists.

Note that the notion of being "true" and the notion of being "provable" are different. Neither implies the other.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: kent davidge
I would say "provable" implies "true".
 
Vanadium 50 said:
I would say "provable" implies "true".
In an inconsistent system, one can prove things that are not true. In a system where the axioms are not true, one can prove things that are not true.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: kent davidge and Motore
jbriggs444 said:
By definition, a theorem is a well formed formula for which a proof exists.
yes, the problem is that someone can make a false claim that a given assertion is a theorem
so we are left with no option but to believe what authors are claiming to be theorems
 
kent davidge said:
yes, the problem is that someone can make a false claim that a given assertion is a theorem
so we are left with no option but to believe what authors are claiming to be theorems
You could ask that a proof (or an outline thereof) be supplied as evidence for the claim that the assertion is a theorem.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: kent davidge

Similar threads

  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 64 ·
3
Replies
64
Views
3K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 73 ·
3
Replies
73
Views
9K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K