Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
The assumption that if there is a counterexample, there is a minimal counterexample, is based on a well-ordering of some kind. The usual ordering on the natural numbers is clearly possible, by the most usual formulation of mathematical induction ; but the scope of the method can include well-ordered induction of any kind.
Most gaps in proofs are caused either by a subtle technical oversight, or before the 20th century by a lack of precise definitions. A major exception to this is the Italian school of algebraic geometry in the first half of the 20th century, where lower standards of rigor gradually became acceptable.
In logic a counterexample disproves the generalization, and does so rigorously in the fields of mathematics and philosophy. [1] For example, the fact that "student John Smith is not lazy" is a counterexample to the generalization "students are lazy", and both a counterexample to, and disproof of, the universal quantification "all students are ...
The definition of a formal proof is intended to capture the concept of proofs as written in the practice of mathematics. The soundness of this definition amounts to the belief that a published proof can, in principle, be converted into a formal proof. However, outside the field of automated proof assistants, this is rarely done in practice.
One of the widely used types of impossibility proof is proof by contradiction.In this type of proof, it is shown that if a proposition, such as a solution to a particular class of equations, is assumed to hold, then via deduction two mutually contradictory things can be shown to hold, such as a number being both even and odd or both negative and positive.
In mathematics, a constructive proof is a method of proof that demonstrates the existence of a mathematical object by creating or providing a method for creating the object. This is in contrast to a non-constructive proof (also known as an existence proof or pure existence theorem ), which proves the existence of a particular kind of object ...
Hilbert's proof did not exhibit any explicit counterexample: only in 1967 the first explicit counterexample was constructed by Motzkin. [3] Furthermore, if the polynomial has a degree 2 d greater than two, there are significantly many more non-negative polynomials that cannot be expressed as sums of squares.
If a counterexample exists, that is, a graph K m,n requiring fewer crossings than the Zarankiewicz bound, then in the smallest counterexample both m and n must be odd. [13] For each fixed choice of m, the truth of the conjecture for all K m,n can be verified by testing only a finite number of choices of n. [15]