20100722, 15:58  #1 
May 2005
Argentina
2×3×31 Posts 
When is a proof rigurous 'enough' ?
This is something that I have some time thinking, when can one be sure that a proof one has written is enough rigurous that everybody else (or mostly everyone) considers it valid?
Example: Theorem "A" Every polynomial of a single variable of odd degree has at last one real root Proof As is odd, if clearly and because for the term with the n exponential grows 'faster' than those of less degree. (1) If it justs swaps with in the limits above. And because is continuous (2) for all x (for been a polynomial), then it has to cross the xaxis at last once (3), so a real root exists. Of course, points (1), (2), and (3) could be developed further (they asume other proofs that I ommited, call them proof "B", "C", and "D"), but should one add those proofs in order for theorem "A" be complete? Could I only give bibliography where those proofs can be found? In general, do you think I really proved Theorem "A" above? (I think most will say no) Thanks, Damián. Last fiddled with by Damian on 20100722 at 16:10 
20100722, 16:33  #2  
Nov 2003
1D24_{16} Posts 
Quote:
being done by a student, then the only thing that matters is what the teacher will accept. If it appears in a publication, then what matters is what professional mathematicians will accept. As a *student*, what you have done does not prove the result. You would indeed need to either add the proofs of (1), (2), (3), or refer to a previously established result. And when I say "established result", I mean a result established as part of the course. This last bit depends a bit on the level of the course. A student in an upperlevel undergrad course can point to a known, published result that is not part of the course itself. But in a lowerdivision course, I doubt whether a teacher would accept external references. Also, if this were done as a proof in a precalculus class where limits and the intermediate value theorem were not yet established, this proof would not be accepted by the teacher. Generally, one is not allowed to use a more "advanced" method to prove an elementary result. The teacher would expect a proof using results from the course or previous courses. Of course, if given as a homework problem, then the teacher should specify "prove all claims" as part of the problem statement. 

20100722, 16:37  #3  
Nov 2003
2^{2}×5×373 Posts 
Quote:
Even if this proof were done in a calculus course, you would still need to refer to the intermediate value theorem to establish the claim that the polynomial does indeed cross the axis. Merely stating that it crosses the axis would be insufficient. 

20100723, 20:18  #4 
May 2005
Argentina
2·3·31 Posts 
Thank you Dr. Silverman for your reply.
I'm not interested in that particular proof, it was just an example. Do you think that a proof of a theorem can always be made more rigurous? Or there is a limit on how rigurous a proof can be? I mean, what is today considered a rigurous proof of an established theorem, may not be a rigurous proof of tomorrow with more advanced techniques? Or do you (anyone who reads this) think that a proof can be so rigurous that it can not be enhanced in any way? What about alternative proofs? Do you think it is useless to find other proof of an established theorem? Do you think one proof will always be the better/more rigurous? Or that two proofs of a given theorem can have relative advantages in some sense over the other? (rigurous vs simple, etc) What would be the point of finding a proof of an already established theorem? Can it be better in some way? In wich sense? (elemental, simple, rigurous, short, elegant?) (It may be a matter of taste if a proof is more elegant than another, isn't it?) One think that surprised me was to read that Gauss gave 6 different proofs of the fundamental theorem of algebra. Wasn't one good enough? Thanks. Last fiddled with by Damian on 20100723 at 20:28 
20100723, 20:25  #5  
Nov 2003
1D24_{16} Posts 
Quote:
exist. Certainly a formal proof in first/second order logic is as rigorous as can be. Quote:
Quote:
You are bandying about informal English words in a way that is not applicable to mathematics. 

20100723, 20:49  #6 
Aug 2006
3^{2}·5·7·19 Posts 
It's a huge, poorlyunderstood topic. Here's 200+ pages of thesis on the topic that I'm coincidentally reading:
Understanding informal mathematical discourse 
20100723, 20:51  #7  
Aug 2006
3^{2}·5·7·19 Posts 
Quote:
There are hundreds of proofs of quadratic reciprocity, half a dozen or more due to Gauss. 

20100723, 22:40  #8 
Dec 2008
179 Posts 
More importantly, different proofs can use different sets of axioms, in which case they will be applicable in different situations. The simplest example I can think of is multiplicative cancellation (i.e. ab=ac implies b=c) which can be proven in (at least) two very different ways.

20100725, 10:05  #9 
Sep 2009
2·1,021 Posts 
As an outsider (I did chemistry at university) my understanding is:
A new proof is most useful if significantly shorter and/or easier to follow. This makes it easier to check there are no errors in it and easier to teach. A second way to prove something is also useful in that is is less likely there is an error in both proofs. This is most useful if the proof is too long to easily check it for errors. Chris K 
Thread Tools  
Similar Threads  
Thread  Thread Starter  Forum  Replies  Last Post 
APRCL as primality proof  f1pokerspeed  FactorDB  14  20140109 21:06 
...another proof down the drain?  Batalov  Math  1  20080812 19:02 
help with a proof  vtai  Math  12  20070628 15:34 
Proof (?!) that RH is false?  bdodson  Lounge  6  20070319 17:19 
A Second Proof of FLT?  jinydu  Math  5  20050521 16:52 