What are some mathematical fields with minimal 'tricks' and logical proofs?

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter tgt
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Areas Research
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around identifying mathematical fields characterized by minimal reliance on 'tricks' and logical proofs. Participants explore the nature of mathematical reasoning, the concept of tricks versus logical deductions, and the subjective interpretation of what constitutes a trick in mathematics.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Exploratory

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions which fields of mathematics contain fewer tricks, suggesting a desire for logical progression in proofs.
  • Another participant argues that all mathematics is logical, implying that perceived 'huge jumps' may be due to omitted steps in explanations.
  • Some participants suggest that the classification of something as a trick is subjective and varies among mathematicians.
  • A reference is made to Donald Knuth's distinction between tricks (used once) and techniques (used repeatedly), indicating a nuanced view on the terminology.
  • There is speculation about Grothendieck's reluctance to prove certain conjectures due to the presence of tricks, highlighting differing perspectives on the role of tricks in mathematical proofs.
  • A participant provides examples of specific mathematical tricks and their applications, expressing a desire for similar methods to address significant problems like the Riemann Hypothesis.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the definition of tricks in mathematics or their prevalence across different fields. There are competing views on the subjectivity of what constitutes a trick and the logical nature of mathematical proofs.

Contextual Notes

The discussion reflects varying interpretations of mathematical reasoning and the subjective nature of terminology used by mathematicians. There are unresolved questions regarding the classification of different mathematical approaches and the implications of using tricks versus logical deductions.

tgt
Messages
519
Reaction score
2
What are fields of research in maths that contain a large number of tricks? What are fields that contain the least number?

By not containing many tricks, I mean fields where each step can be deduced in a logical manner without huge jumps. Tricks will mean the opposite.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
You ask the weirdest questions. I would say that all maths is logical, you just need to understand the steps. For example, by "huge jumps" I presume you mean the author of a certain piece of work you are reading has just missed out several steps.. this can happen in any field!
 
cristo said:
You ask the weirdest questions. I would say that all maths is logical, you just need to understand the steps. For example, by "huge jumps" I presume you mean the author of a certain piece of work you are reading has just missed out several steps.. this can happen in any field!

I see your point but it is possible to distinguish a trick and something less so given the fact that mathematicians talk about something being a trick or not.
 
So whether something is or is not a "trick" depends upon the individual mathematician.

My experience is that most mathematicians don't talk about "tricks" at all!
 
HallsofIvy said:
So whether something is or is not a "trick" depends upon the individual mathematician.

My experience is that most mathematicians don't talk about "tricks" at all!

Knuth did, but he might not count as a mathematician. He had some terminology here, something like 'tricks are things you use once, techniques are things you use repeatedly'. That's from the draft copy of one of his TAoCP series.
 
HallsofIvy said:
So whether something is or is not a "trick" depends upon the individual mathematician.

My experience is that most mathematicians don't talk about "tricks" at all!

Some mathematicians speculated that Grothendieck didn't want to prove the Weil conjectures because it contained a trick or something like that.

It seems to me that all maths competition problem contain tricks, no?
 
perhaps he is referring a 'trick' in the sense that you can proof a math theorem in a small number of steps.

for example, if you consider the 'trick' [tex]\sum_{n= -\infty}^{\infty}e^{2i \pi n x} =\sum_{n= -\infty}^{\infty} \delta (x-n)[/tex]

taking Mellin transform on both sides you can get an easy 'proof' of Riemann Functional equation.

another of my favourites is the expansion [tex]ex(-exp(x))= 1-exp(x)+exp(2x)-[/tex]

used to proof 'Ramanujan master theorem' http://mathworld.wolfram.com/RamanujansMasterTheorem.html

i always dreamed about a similar kind of 'trick' to prove RH (Riemann Hypothesis)
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 64 ·
3
Replies
64
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K