2 Indeed, in mathematics it is a sort of methodological sin to claim knowledge in the absence of proof. Knowledge of a mathematical proposition.
Table of contents
Proofs in Mathematics
Sign in via your Institution Sign in. Purchase Subscription prices and ordering Short-term Access To purchase short term access, please sign in to your Oxford Academic account above. This article is also available for rental through DeepDyve. Email alerts New issue alert. Receive exclusive offers and updates from Oxford Academic. Related articles in Web of Science Google Scholar. Citing articles via Web of Science 2. Steps towards Coherentist Quantum Mechanics.
Coherence, Explanation, and Hypothesis Selection. Regularity Relationalism and the Constructivist Project. Mathematicians have shown there are many statements that are neither provable nor disprovable in Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory with the axiom of choice ZFC , the standard system of set theory in mathematics assuming that ZFC is consistent ; see list of statements undecidable in ZFC. While early mathematicians such as Eudoxus of Cnidus did not use proofs, from Euclid to the foundational mathematics developments of the late 19th and 20th centuries, proofs were an essential part of mathematics.
Early pioneers of these methods intended the work ultimately to be embedded in a classical proof-theorem framework, e. Although not a formal proof, a visual demonstration of a mathematical theorem is sometimes called a " proof without words ". The left-hand picture below is an example of a historic visual proof of the Pythagorean theorem in the case of the 3,4,5 triangle.
Some illusory visual proofs, such as the missing square puzzle , can be constructed in a way which appear to prove a supposed mathematical fact but only do so under the presence of tiny errors for example, supposedly straight lines which actually bend slightly which are unnoticeable until the entire picture is closely examined, with lengths and angles precisely measured or calculated. An elementary proof is a proof which only uses basic techniques. More specifically, the term is used in number theory to refer to proofs that make no use of complex analysis.
For some time it was thought that certain theorems, like the prime number theorem , could only be proved using "higher" mathematics. However, over time, many of these results have been reproved using only elementary techniques. A particular way of organising a proof using two parallel columns is often used in elementary geometry classes in the United States. In each line, the left-hand column contains a proposition, while the right-hand column contains a brief explanation of how the corresponding proposition in the left-hand column is either an axiom, a hypothesis, or can be logically derived from previous propositions.
The left-hand column is typically headed "Statements" and the right-hand column is typically headed "Reasons". The expression "mathematical proof" is used by lay people to refer to using mathematical methods or arguing with mathematical objects , such as numbers, to demonstrate something about everyday life, or when data used in an argument is numerical.
It is sometimes also used to mean a "statistical proof" below , especially when used to argue from data. While using mathematical proof to establish theorems in statistics, it is usually not a mathematical proof in that the assumptions from which probability statements are derived require empirical evidence from outside mathematics to verify. In physics , in addition to statistical methods, "statistical proof" can refer to the specialized mathematical methods of physics applied to analyze data in a particle physics experiment or observational study in physical cosmology.
Proofs using inductive logic , while considered mathematical in nature, seek to establish propositions with a degree of certainty, which acts in a similar manner to probability , and may be less than full certainty. Inductive logic should not be confused with mathematical induction. Bayesian analysis uses Bayes' theorem to update a person's assessment of likelihoods of hypotheses when new evidence or information is acquired. Psychologism views mathematical proofs as psychological or mental objects.
Mathematician philosophers , such as Leibniz , Frege , and Carnap have variously criticized this view and attempted to develop a semantics for what they considered to be the language of thought , whereby standards of mathematical proof might be applied to empirical science. Philosopher-mathematicians such as Spinoza have attempted to formulate philosophical arguments in an axiomatic manner, whereby mathematical proof standards could be applied to argumentation in general philosophy.
Other mathematician-philosophers have tried to use standards of mathematical proof and reason, without empiricism, to arrive at statements outside of mathematics, but having the certainty of propositions deduced in a mathematical proof, such as Descartes ' cogito argument. Sometimes, the abbreviation "Q. This abbreviation stands for "Quod Erat Demonstrandum" , which is Latin for "that which was to be demonstrated". From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. This article has an unclear citation style.
The references used may be made clearer with a different or consistent style of citation and footnoting. May Learn how and when to remove this template message. Animated visual proof for the Pythagorean theorem by rearrangement. Inductive logic and Bayesian analysis. Psychologism and Language of thought. Logic portal Mathematics portal. Automated theorem proving Invalid proof List of incomplete proofs List of long proofs List of mathematical proofs Nonconstructive proof Proof by intimidation Termination analysis What the Tortoise Said to Achilles. University of British Columbia.
- The Fruit of Her Hands: The Story of Shira of Ashkenaz?
- Charming proofs.
- Your HCG Diet Recipes and Tips.
- Navigation menu;
A statement whose truth is either to be taken as self-evident or to be assumed. Certain areas of mathematics involve choosing a set of axioms and discovering what results can be derived from them, providing proofs for the theorems that are obtained. The Nuts and Bolts of Proofs.
Discrete Mathematics with Proof. John Wiley and Sons, The Emergence of Probability: The development of logic. See in particular p. Is One and One Really Two? Amazingly, he found himself alone with this conjecture. What the axioms and theorems concern on this third reading are certain arithmetical operations and particular properties of those operations.
On this reading, the axioms set out basic properties of those operations and on that basis one derives theorems that ascribe other, non-basic properties to those same operations.
Simple proofs
On the first, quantificational reading, both N and S are assumed fixed. On the second, Hilbertian reading, both N and S are treated as uninterpreted independent of the specification of a model in which the axiom comes out true. The third reading, on this account, keeps S fixed but allows N to vary with different interpretations.
And a fourth possibility opens up as well, namely, to keep N fixed and let S vary.
Mathematical proof
But that is not what is intended here. The third reading we are after, according to which the axioms ascribe properties to the operations of addition and multiplication, does not involve any quantifiers at all. It has the form of a simple predication; it is like an ascription of a property to an object, something of the form ' Fa ', but is one level up insofar as the "object" in this case is the addition function not the numbers that function correlates but the correlating function itself , and the property ascribed is a second-level one.
To explain how exactly the notation would have to be functioning to serve this expressive purpose would take us too far afield 14 For our purposes what is important is that such a reading is available, and that it is quite different both from the first quantificational reading and from the related Hilbertian reading. On the first reading the axioms are about some objects and ascribe properties and relations to those objects, all of them. On the second reading, the axioms are about some particular domain of objects only on an interpretation in a model that makes the axioms true.
On the third reading, the axioms are not about objects, numbers, but about particular arithmeti-cal functions, and they ascribe various higher-level properties and relations to those arithmetical functions. It follows, that is, that the quantificational reading of that same axiom is true.
But now, as we can see, that universally quantified generality is not known to be true directly. How could it be given that there are infinitely, indeed, non-denumerably many numbers to which it applies? Instead that quantified generality is known to be true because the operation of addition has the property of being commutative. It is, rather, necessary that this be so. And this necessity at the level of individual, particular numbers can be explained by the fact, one level up—that is, at the level of operations on numbers rather than at the level of the numbers themselves—that the operation of addition has the property of being commutative.
The basic idea is this. If, as on our third reading, we take our axioms and theorems to be ascriptions of properties to the operations of addition and multiplication, then we can see as well that the inferences from the axioms to the theorems are not good in virtue of the fact that they are about addition and multiplication—any more than our inference about Felix was good in virtue of being about Felix.
They are good because having those particular properties that are ascribed in the axioms entails having certain other properties as well. That is just what the derivations of the theorems from the axioms show. It follows directly that any other function or operation having the same particular properties as are ascribed in the axioms will also have the properties that are ascribed in the theorems that are derived from the axioms. The Hilbertian insight that the axioms and theorems can be applied in other cases does not show that the model-theoretic conception of language is the right conception to have.
For that insight can be seen instead as a reflection of the fundamental feature of inference we have already remarked on, the fact that any particular inference is an instance or application of a general rule that can be applied also in relevant other cases. All these basic and derived truths function in turn to license inferences in particular cases. They can, in other words, be applied as rules in solving construction problems and in demonstrating theorems.
Consider, for illustration, this theorem: In order to show algebraically that this theorem is true, we begin by formulating the starting point in the symbolic language. We have two numbers that are each a sum of two integer squares, which we express in the symbolic language thus: What we must show is that their product is also a sum of integer squares.
So we write down the product of our two sums thus: Notice what we have done here. We began with a certain mathematical idea, the idea, or as we can also say, the concept, of a sum of two integer squares. The content of that concept, what it is to be a sum of two integer squares, was then expressed in the language of algebra: To express the idea that we have two such sums we then used different letters in place of ' a ' and ' b ', and on that basis we were able to exhibit the content of the idea of a product of two numbers that are, each of them, a sum of two integer squares: Having thus formulated the content of the concept product of two sums of two integer squares in an arithmetically articulated complex of signs in the language, we can now apply the rules given in the axioms and derived theorems.
Notice, first, that although the rule applies to a certain form of expression it is still perfectly possible to keep the con tent expressed in view as we apply the rule. As an indication of this we can express the rule in axiom 5 in meaningful words: It is also worth remarking that although we generally think of inferential articulation as something that involves a relation between concepts, here we are dealing with an internally articulated idea.
It is the whole expression that sets out the idea with which we are concerned, that is, the idea of a product of two sums of integer squares, but because that expression is internally articulated, we can apply the rewrite rules of elementary algebra to it. At this point a student might wonder why that was a good move to make. The reason, however, becomes clear at the next step in which we both add and subtract 2abcd with the letters appropriately reordered to give, after some reorganization,. And now even the student ought to be able to see that this last expression can be rewritten by appeal to familiar derived rules as.
But that, we can see, is just what was wanted, a sum of two integer squares. We have the desired result. That reasoning was, or at least could have been made to be, fully rigorous, every step licensed by a basic or derived rule in the system, but it was also fully contentful. In proving the theorem that the product of two sums of integer squares is also a sum of integer squares that is, that being a product of two sums of integer squares entails being a sum of integer squares, and vice versa in elementary algebra one does not abstract from content; instead one expresses content in a mathematically tractable way, in a way enabling reasoning in the system of signs.
Of course the beginning student will operate with the language in a fairly mechanical way, much as the beginning chess player operates with chess pieces in the course of a game. It takes time to become literate in the system, to learn to see the meanings in the signs, the contents they express, and this is not surprising.
The symbolic language of elementary algebra is quite unlike natural language. It is a specially designed system operating on its own distinctive principles, and it takes practice, and some skill, to learn to use it to its full potential—just as it takes practice, and skill, to become a master chess player, to learn to see the opportunities and hazards in particular configurations of chess pieces.
As Avigad from whom I borrow the example notes, "the proof uses only the commutativity and associativity of addition and multiplication, the distributivity of multiplication over addition and subtraction, and the fact that subtraction is an inverse to addition; hence it shows that the theorem is true much more generally in any commutative ring" [Avigad , ]. This is just what I have called the Hilbertian insight again. This little chain of reasoning is valid, and so we know that it is an instance of a rule that can be applied also in other cases provided that the requisite properties hold in those cases.
This chain of reasoning does not show that we are, in this case, not in fact reasoning about products of sums and sums of squares, any more than the fact that the rule governing the inference about Felix applies also in other cases shows that in the given case we are not reasoning about Felix. What it shows is that the reasoning can also be applied in other cases as well.
In this regard mathematician's proofs are very different from what an account such as Suppes' would lead one to expect. And there is another respect as well in which mathematicians' actual practice diverges from the standard view, and diverges in a way that seems centrally tied to the issue of mathematical understanding. According to the standard view, theorems are proven on the basis of axioms, not on the basis of definitions; although definitions are sometimes discussed in logic, they play no role in reasoning as it is understood by the mathematical logician.
Definitions are taken merely to provide abbreviations. As Avigad puts it, "in standard logic textbooks This is very hard to understand if a definition is merely an abbreviation. But again if we consider a case from early modern algebra, we can begin to formulate a more satisfactory alternative. The fundamental importance of definitions in mathematics is thus not even hinted at by such an example. A different example will do better. As this example makes clear, the identity is not functioning merely as an abbreviation. It can be shown that such a number must exist. Given that e x is its own derivative, it follows that: What we have in this identity is, then, on the left, a simple sign for a particular function, and on the right, a very richly articulated collection of signs, one that clearly displays a certain pattern—which is why we need not worry about the fact that we cannot actually write out the whole infinite sequence.
Enough of it is given that we know how it will go, and so could extend it arbitrarily far. This identity is furthermore true so we know that one and the same function is designated both by the simple expression on the left and by the complex expression on the right. The two signs do not, however, express the same Fregean sense, as is evident from the fact that we had to argue that the identity was true. But we can also just see that the senses of the two expressions are different insofar as the one expression, ' e x ', has no internal arithmetical articulation while the other, the infinite series, has a great deal.
Precisely because the expression on the right is complex, one can apply the rules of algebra to the content that is there exhibited in a way that is simply impossible in the case of the simple sign appearing on the left. And now we are in a position to notice something interesting, namely, that all the terms that appear in the power series expansion of the function e x occur in one or other of the power series for the sine and cosine functions. Only the signs are different. Let us then everywhere replace x in. Now we do some standard algebraic manipulations according to the rules to get.
And rearranging things a bit, by collecting together the terms that contain i , gives this: And now we can see that the first series is just that we identified with the cosine function and the second that identified with the sine function. Without the simple signs ' e x ', ' sin x ', and ' cos x ' we would not be able to recognize our result as a result involving the exponential function and the two trigonometric functions; without the power series with which these three functions were identified, we would be unable to reason our way to the desired result.
The example thus illustrates the way in which finding a fruitful articulation of some mathematical notion, one that will enable the proof of some result, can constitutes a real mathematical advance. Of course the simple signs are eliminable in the demonstration in the sense that replacing all instances of them in the course of reasoning with the relevant complex signs will not affect the validity of the reasoning.
But equally obviously doing that destroys the interest of the demonstration insofar as it is no longer possible to see the demonstration as a demonstration involving the exponential and trigonometric functions. What one would end up with in that case would be a trivial identity, one with the same power series on both sides of the identity sign.
But we can see this only if we have the identities of the exponential function and of the trigonometric functions with which we began, both the complex signs, the power series, and the simple signs ' e x ', ' sin x ', and ' cos x '. In these identities, both the simple sign and the complex sign designate or mean one and the same thing; they have the same Bedeutung. Different things follow from the simple and the complex signs precisely because the one is a simple sign and the other is a complex sign with a lot of internal articulation that can be utilized in the proof.
And though I will not try to show it here, just the same point can be applied also to definitions in actual mathematical practice. Definitions in mathematics are not mere abbreviations. They provide an articulation of the content of some mathematical notion that is also named in the definiendum, content that can be critical to the chain of reasoning required by the proof. Theorems derived from those axioms ascribe further properties to those operations, and both those axioms and the theorems derived from them can then be treated as basic and derived rules governing valid inferences.
Proofs in Mathematics
We have looked at two sorts of cases, one that did not involve any identities of simple and complex signs our little demonstration of the theorem that if two numbers are both sums of integer squares then their product is also a sum of integer squares and another in which such identities have an essential role to play, namely, in the demonstration of Euler's theorem. In both sorts of cases the reasoning is, in principle, fully rigorous; every step in the reasoning is justified by some antecedently specified or specifiable rule.
But the reasoning is also fully contentful. The formula language of arithmetic and algebra enables the expression of a content in a way that is mathematically tractable, that is, in a way enabling one to reason on the basis of content in the system of signs. And because it does, we can begin at least to understand, if only for this case, how it is that a proof can advance our mathematical understanding. Because the dilemma with which we began— according to which a proof cannot be both formal, that is, fully rigorous, and also contentful hence relevant to mathematical understanding —does not arise for this case, we can see how a fully rigorous chain of reasoning can be fully compatible with reasoning on the basis of mathematical ideas.
Our examples show that it is possible that by proving something a mathematician might gain insight and understanding. Taking our cue from that formula language, it is, however, possible to say what such a system of signs would have to do: Our logical languages were not designed to do this. Although one can formulate basic and derived laws of logic in a logical language such as that Suppes introduces in his little logic textbook, and can reason rigorously in the system, one cannot exhibit the contents of concepts in such a language.
The language was not designed for that expressive purpose, and nor even is it obvious how this might be done, what sort of language might be needed instead. But as obvious and natural as this is to us, it is far from clear how the language is functioning to enable such a display. And because this is not clear such an expression does not immediately suggest to us what it would take to display the contents of concepts in a way that would enable not now algebraic computations but instead deductive reasoning, that is, the sort of reasoning mathematicians began to employ over the course of the nineteenth century.
- Derniers numéros;
- Sliding Down A Rainbow...A Colorful View of Life and Beyond.
- Navigation.
- Download options.
- Mathematical proof - Wikipedia!
- Similar books and articles;
But we do know at least this much.