4 ms·
I'm not so sure that we're missing anything basic. The top rated answer by Scott Aaronson seems spot on to me. The natural numbers are just too powerful. As the
by fdej 9y ago
I'm not so sure that we're missing anything basic. The top rated answer by Scott Aaronson seems spot on to me. The natural numbers are just too powerful. As the resolution of Hilbert's tenth problem shows, we can at best hope to solve special cases of statements involving natural numbers, and the solvable cases are bound to require techniques of increasing complexity.
What would count as a "master theorem" for some field, anyway? I suppose something like Tarski's quantifier elimination of semialgebraic sets over R^n might be an example, though for actual computations the best algorithms have double exponential worst case complexity (i.e. even worse than integer factorization). Or for something even more basic, perhaps the fundamental theorem of linear algebra (along with Gaussian elimination). There's the saying that mathematics is the art of reducing any problem to linear algebra -- I suppose the hard problems in number theory are the ones that don't have a good linear algebra reformulation :-)
- raverbashing 9y agoYeah I read that comment and I agree with you > What would count as a "master theorem" for some field, anyway? I think you gave good examples, but it could be something like the discovery of Calculus, where suddenly a lot of problems became tractable. And in the end we even managed to solve (some) differential equations by solving polynomial equations. So maybe you're right and it's linear algebra all the way down, but we're missing the weird trick to convert a factorization problem into a polynomial or something like that
- hhmc 9y agoNot a (master) theorem per se, but how about the classification of finite groups?