Posts Tagged: Proof

Logic/Math — No Comments
15
Mar 07

Proof of the Week: Introduction

proof_weekI’ve decided to try to do a weekly feature called “Proof of the Week,” where I’ll explain a mathematical proof that I find particularly illuminating or intriguing. Part of the reason that I write so many math posts on this blog is that I feel that much of the beauty of math is an acquired taste. So my desire is to help serve as a “waiter” who introduces people to some of the fascinating tidbits of the subject. I know a lot of people who run (or roll their eyes) when they hear the word “math.” It brings back terrifying memories of grade school multiplication tests and what not. I don’t blame you. My fourth grade math teacher used to slam a book shut at the end of every minute long mad-dash times test. It scared the bejeus out of me every time. Even so, I still love math.

Most of the proofs I’ll be talking about from week to week won’t be overly intense. I’m sure that many of them will require some general knowledge background, but nothing too academic. My hope is that by explaining some interesting results that you too might see a little bit more of the grandeur contained in this subject. I remember when I took my first proof-based math class during my sophomore year of college. I knew that a lot of rigorous math had to do with proofs, but it wasn’t until my 20th year of life on this planet that I learned what they were really all about. And here’s one of the many revelations I came to rather quickly:

Math is nowhere near as objective as I thought it was growing up. In other words, I always thought that there was a unique answer to every problem. Because of this, I think that many people regard math as some sort of rigid 60 year old person wearing starched clothing who eats the exact same three meals a day and whose house is painted a single shade of grey. To use another image, many people view math problems as some sort of assembly line. You insert a problem at the beginning of the line, perform a bunch of robotic methods, and the answer plops out at the end of the line. If this is your view of math, no wonder you think it’s boring! There’s no art in these images. There’s no movement or color in these pictures.

Math is nowhere near as simple as an assembly line. At least not at its heart. But since most of us grow up learning rote methods to solve problems many of us find the subject to be too tedious or mundane. And I don’t blame you for thinking that. What I WOULD like for you to consider is that you’ve been misled. Like any other academic discipline, math is a growing organism. Hopefully in these “Proofs of the Week” I’ll be able to illuminate some of the beauty that is contained in math. The first of the series will be up in a day or two. Stay tuned!

Logic/Math — No Comments
2
Feb 07

Poincaré Conjecture (The Proof is in the Method)

sphereThough I’m a little bit late on this, Science Magazine recently published a great article on the scientific breakthroughs of 2006. Topping the list was the proof of the Poincare Conjecture, which I’ve posted about several times on this blog. You can read their synopsis of the breakthrough proof here. It turns out that from the media’s perspective the drama behind the proof is almost greater than the mathematical result. Basically there was a lot of name calling among some members of the mathematical community concerning who made certain contributions toward the eventual proof. Sad. Apart from the soap opera, the author explains the Poincaré Conjecture in a very accessible way, which should be understandable by anyone who’s interested in reading it. This proof will be a huge deal for mathematics over the coming decades, and should help mathematicians better understand topics such as the “Navier-Stokes equation [of fluid dynamics] and the Einstein equation [of general relativity].”

Perhaps the most interesting thing to note is that the article focuses not only on the result of the problem (the proof itself), but also the methods used to solve the problem. This is an hugely understated part of the mathematical process. I’m of the opinion that when the general populace thinks about math that they are fixated on two things: the problem and the answer. What people tend to overlook is the process of problem solving. In math, there are not always clear-cut methods that explain how to get from point A to point B. A lot of thought is sometimes necessary to figure out how to traverse the path. The Poincaré Conjecture is a monumental achievement not only because of the end result, but also because of the original steps the solvers of the problem (especially Grigori Perelman) took to get there. These steps will be used in other problems; they are not exclusively tied to this one specific problem. Once again, congratulations to Perelman and the other mathematicians who had a hand in making this historic achievement!