3 ms·
I wouldn't consider an obfuscated 1 line C program simple. Thats how I look at unintuitive proofs that simply evaluate to true but appear to lack premeditation.
by goldenkey 8y ago
I wouldn't consider an obfuscated 1 line C program simple. Thats how I look at unintuitive proofs that simply evaluate to true but appear to lack premeditation. Might as well just replace the proof with a brute force computer assisted proof.. I get that people want simple... simple and small is nice..its a challenge for any mathematician. But the beauty is really in something other than the proof - its origin and creation story. Every "challenge proof" should come with an addendum. Kinda like Obfuscated C or JS2k contest entries usually come with a write-up.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- ColinWright 8y agoThese aren't intended to be "beautiful" proofs, they are simple proofs. They can be followed without having to grok vast amounts of external material. They are self-contained, without external dependencies. They are short, and while you may feel that they fail to impart insight, I'm not so sure. Having lived with these proofs for some years ( I knew them before I saw this series of blogs posts) I find that they are becoming simpler over time as I understand more about what's going on around them. Fermat's Last Theorem is trivial to prove because we just quote the Taniyama-Shimura-Weil Theorem, observe a particular elliptic curve, and there you are. It's "simple," once you have T-S-W. But that's means it's not self-contained, and while it is probably more enlightening as to the underlying why all this works, it's not simple. So your comment about using the zeta function and the periodicity requirement of infinite series exactly shows why your suggestion might be enlightening, but is not simple. At least, not in any sense I would use.