Exploring the Rigorous Methods Mathematicians Use for Proofs
Written on
Chapter 1: The Nature of Mathematical Proof
Understanding the concept of 'proof' in mathematics is crucial, as it leaves no space for uncertainty or error. Here, we will examine some traditional techniques that mathematicians employ to satisfy this stringent requirement.
The term ‘proof’ holds different meanings across various fields. In law, for example, the phrase ‘proof beyond a reasonable doubt’ implies that some uncertainty may exist in a conviction, provided it is not deemed ‘reasonable.’ Similarly, statisticians might dismiss a hypothesis based on an extremely low probability of obtaining a specific data sample if that hypothesis were true, leaving a slim margin for doubt.
However, in Pure Mathematics, the standard for proof is uncompromising. There must be no doubt whatsoever. When presented with a statement, a mathematician must provide a logical framework that guarantees a conclusion with absolute certainty. A probability of 99.99999% is insufficient, as that remaining 0.00001% indicates the statement is not fully proven. The logical reasoning employed must rely solely on definitions, previously established truths, or a limited number of fundamental axioms accepted as self-evident by the mathematical community. One such axiom asserts that two sets containing identical elements are considered the same set.
What methods do mathematicians utilize to adhere to this elevated standard of proof? This article will outline three prevalent techniques along with their logical underpinnings, and I will also touch on intriguing aspects of mathematical proof, such as rare cases where it may be impossible to conclusively prove or disprove a statement.
Understanding Mathematical Proofs in Depth
The first video, How do Mathematicians Prove Things?, delves into the rigorous methods mathematicians use to establish proofs with absolute certainty.
Method 1: Direct Proof
In a direct proof, the mathematician begins with definitions, axioms, or previously proven statements and follows a sequence of logical deductions to arrive at the statement that requires proof. For instance, we can directly prove that the square of an even number is also even.
To demonstrate this, we define an even number as any integer of the form 2k, where k is an integer. Consequently, we can reformulate our statement as follows:
If n = 2k (where k is an integer), then n² = 2j (where j is also an integer).
Starting with n = 2k, squaring both sides yields n² = (2k)² = 4k². We can factor out a 2 to express this as n² = 2(2k²) = 2j, thus confirming that n² is indeed even.
The Pythagorean Theorem, stating that in any right triangle, the square of the longest side equals the sum of the squares of the other two sides, serves as another example of a theorem that can be directly proved.
Introduction to Basic Proofs
The second video, How do mathematicians prove things? An introduction to basic proofs, provides foundational insights into various proof techniques used in mathematics.
Method 2: Proof by Contradiction
Proof by contradiction involves initially assuming the statement to be proven is false and exploring the logical implications of that assumption. If this leads to a contradiction with established truths, we conclude that the original statement must be true. The renowned mathematician G. H. Hardy regarded proof by contradiction as ‘one of the finest tools of mathematicians.’
For example, to prove that the square root of 2 cannot be expressed as a fraction (i.e., in the form a/b where a and b are integers), we assume √2 = a/b for integers a and b, and analyze the logical outcomes.
Assuming at least one of a or b is odd, we square both sides to obtain 2 = a²/b². Multiplying through by b² results in a² = 2b².
Whether a is odd or even leads to contradictions regarding established mathematical truths. Hence, we conclude that our initial assumption must be incorrect, affirming that √2 cannot be expressed as a fraction.
Method 3: Proof by Induction
Proof by induction is particularly effective for establishing the truth of a statement for all positive integers. It can be likened to a line of dominoes where knocking over the first domino ensures all others will fall.
To validate a statement for all positive integers n, two conditions must be proven:
- The statement holds for n = 1 (induction start).
- If it is true for n = k, then it must also be true for n = k + 1 (induction step).
For instance, we can prove that the sum of the first n positive integers equals ½n(n+1). First, we confirm that when n = 1, the equation holds true.
Next, assuming the formula applies to k, we must show it also applies to k + 1. The sum of the first k + 1 integers can be expressed as the sum of the first k integers plus the next integer, k + 1.
Through algebraic manipulation, we can demonstrate that this leads to the desired result, completing our proof.
Exploring Further Aspects of Mathematical Proof
Disproving a mathematical statement is often more straightforward than proving it, particularly for broad claims. For instance, consider the assertion:
All four-sided shapes with equal lengths are squares.
It merely takes one counterexample to invalidate this claim. Can you think of one?
Numerous long-standing conjectures in mathematics have been overturned by counterexamples. A notable instance involves Leonhard Euler’s conjecture regarding sums of k-th powers, which was disproven in 1966 by a computer calculation revealing that 144^5 = 27^5 + 84^5 + 110^5 + 133^5, summing only four fifth powers.
Furthermore, while axioms in mathematics are accepted as self-evident and require no proof, they do not underpin all branches of mathematical theory. There exist statements independent of these axioms, where both proof and disproof are possible.
The Continuum Hypothesis, stating that no set exists that is larger than the integers but smaller than the real numbers, exemplifies this. Kurt Gödel proved in 1940 that its existence cannot be established through mathematical axioms, while Paul Cohen demonstrated in 1963 that its non-existence also cannot be proven.
What are your thoughts on the common approaches mathematicians adopt for proofs? Have you attempted to prove or disprove any statements from this article? Feel free to share your insights in the comments!