Hubbry Logo
TheoremTheoremMain
Open search
Theorem
Community hub
Theorem
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Theorem
Theorem
Theorem
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia
The Pythagorean theorem has at least 370 known proofs.[1]

In mathematics and formal logic, a theorem is a statement that has been proven, or can be proven.[a][2][3] The proof of a theorem is a logical argument that uses the inference rules of a deductive system to establish that the theorem is a logical consequence of the axioms and previously proved theorems.

In mainstream mathematics, the axioms and the inference rules are commonly left implicit, and, in this case, they are almost always those of Zermelo–Fraenkel set theory with the axiom of choice (ZFC), or of a less powerful theory, such as Peano arithmetic.[b] Generally, an assertion that is explicitly called a theorem is a proved result that is not an immediate consequence of other known theorems. Moreover, many authors qualify as theorems only the most important results, and use the terms lemma, proposition and corollary for less important theorems.

In mathematical logic, the concepts of theorems and proofs have been formalized in order to allow mathematical reasoning about them. In this context, statements become well-formed formulas of some formal language. A theory consists of some basis statements called axioms, and some deducing rules (sometimes included in the axioms). The theorems of the theory are the statements that can be derived from the axioms by using the deducing rules.[c] This formalization led to proof theory, which allows proving general theorems about theorems and proofs. In particular, Gödel's incompleteness theorems show that every consistent theory containing the natural numbers has true statements on natural numbers that are not theorems of the theory (that is they cannot be proved inside the theory).

As the axioms are often abstractions of properties of the physical world, theorems may be considered as expressing some truth, but in contrast to the notion of a scientific law, which is experimental, the justification of the truth of a theorem is purely deductive.[6][d] A conjecture is a tentative proposition that may evolve to become a theorem if proven true.

Theoremhood and truth

[edit]

Until the end of the 19th century and the foundational crisis of mathematics, all mathematical theories were built from a few basic properties that were considered as self-evident; for example, the facts that every natural number has a successor, and that there is exactly one line that passes through two given distinct points. These basic properties that were considered as absolutely evident were called postulates or axioms; for example Euclid's postulates. All theorems were proved by using implicitly or explicitly these basic properties, and, because of the evidence of these basic properties, a proved theorem was considered as a definitive truth, unless there was an error in the proof. For example, the sum of the interior angles of a triangle equals 180°, and this was considered as an undoubtable fact.

One aspect of the foundational crisis of mathematics was the discovery of non-Euclidean geometries that do not lead to any contradiction, although, in such geometries, the sum of the angles of a triangle is different from 180°. So, the property "the sum of the angles of a triangle equals 180°" is either true or false, depending whether Euclid's fifth postulate is assumed or denied. Similarly, the use of "evident" basic properties of sets leads to the contradiction of Russell's paradox. This has been resolved by elaborating the rules that are allowed for manipulating sets.

This crisis has been resolved by revisiting the foundations of mathematics to make them more rigorous. In these new foundations, a theorem is a well-formed formula of a mathematical theory that can be proved from the axioms and inference rules of the theory. So, the above theorem on the sum of the angles of a triangle becomes: Under the axioms and inference rules of Euclidean geometry, the sum of the interior angles of a triangle equals 180°. Similarly, Russell's paradox disappears because, in an axiomatized set theory, the set of all sets cannot be expressed with a well-formed formula. More precisely, if the set of all sets can be expressed with a well-formed formula, this implies that the theory is inconsistent, and every well-formed assertion, as well as its negation, is a theorem.

In this context, the validity of a theorem depends only on the correctness of its proof. It is independent from the truth, or even the significance of the axioms. This does not mean that the significance of the axioms is uninteresting, but only that the validity of a theorem is independent from the significance of the axioms. This independence may be useful by allowing the use of results of some area of mathematics in apparently unrelated areas.

An important consequence of this way of thinking about mathematics is that it allows defining mathematical theories and theorems as mathematical objects, and to prove theorems about them. Examples are Gödel's incompleteness theorems. In particular, there are well-formed assertions than can be proved to not be a theorem of the ambient theory, although they can be proved in a wider theory. An example is Goodstein's theorem, which can be stated in Peano arithmetic, but is proved to be not provable in Peano arithmetic. However, it is provable in some more general theories, such as Zermelo–Fraenkel set theory.

Epistemological considerations

[edit]

Many mathematical theorems are conditional statements, whose proofs deduce conclusions from conditions known as hypotheses or premises. In light of the interpretation of proof as justification of truth, the conclusion is often viewed as a necessary consequence of the hypotheses. Namely, that the conclusion is true in case the hypotheses are true—without any further assumptions. However, the conditional could also be interpreted differently in certain deductive systems, depending on the meanings assigned to the derivation rules and the conditional symbol (e.g., non-classical logic).

Although theorems can be written in a completely symbolic form (e.g., as propositions in propositional calculus), they are often expressed informally in a natural language such as English for better readability. The same is true of proofs, which are often expressed as logically organized and clearly worded informal arguments, intended to convince readers of the truth of the statement of the theorem beyond any doubt, and from which a formal symbolic proof can in principle be constructed.

In addition to the better readability, informal arguments are typically easier to check than purely symbolic ones—indeed, many mathematicians would express a preference for a proof that not only demonstrates the validity of a theorem, but also explains in some way why it is obviously true. In some cases, one might even be able to substantiate a theorem by using a picture as its proof.

Because theorems lie at the core of mathematics, they are also central to its aesthetics. Theorems are often described as being "trivial", or "difficult", or "deep", or even "beautiful". These subjective judgments vary not only from person to person, but also with time and culture: for example, as a proof is obtained, simplified or better understood, a theorem that was once difficult may become trivial.[7] On the other hand, a deep theorem may be stated simply, but its proof may involve surprising and subtle connections between disparate areas of mathematics. Fermat's Last Theorem is a particularly well-known example of such a theorem.[8]

Informal account of theorems

[edit]

Logically, many theorems are of the form of an indicative conditional: If A, then B. Such a theorem does not assert B — only that B is a necessary consequence of A. In this case, A is called the hypothesis of the theorem ("hypothesis" here means something very different from a conjecture), and B the conclusion of the theorem. The two together (without the proof) are called the proposition or statement of the theorem (e.g. "If A, then B" is the proposition). Alternatively, A and B can be also termed the antecedent and the consequent, respectively.[9] The theorem "If n is an even natural number, then n/2 is a natural number" is a typical example in which the hypothesis is "n is an even natural number", and the conclusion is "n/2 is also a natural number".

In order for a theorem to be proved, it must be in principle expressible as a precise, formal statement. However, theorems are usually expressed in natural language rather than in a completely symbolic form—with the presumption that a formal statement can be derived from the informal one.

It is common in mathematics to choose a number of hypotheses within a given language and declare that the theory consists of all statements provable from these hypotheses. These hypotheses form the foundational basis of the theory and are called axioms or postulates. The field of mathematics known as proof theory studies formal languages, axioms and the structure of proofs.

A planar map with five colors such that no two regions with the same color meet. It can actually be colored in this way with only four colors. The four color theorem states that such colorings are possible for any planar map, but every known proof involves a computational search that is too long to check by hand.

Some theorems are "trivial", in the sense that they follow from definitions, axioms, and other theorems in obvious ways and do not contain any surprising insights. Some, on the other hand, may be called "deep", because their proofs may be long and difficult, involve areas of mathematics superficially distinct from the statement of the theorem itself, or show surprising connections between disparate areas of mathematics.[10] A theorem might be simple to state and yet be deep. An excellent example is Fermat's Last Theorem,[8] and there are many other examples of simple yet deep theorems in number theory and combinatorics, among other areas.

Other theorems have a known proof that cannot easily be written down. The most prominent examples are the four color theorem and the Kepler conjecture. Both of these theorems are only known to be true by reducing them to a computational search that is then verified by a computer program. Initially, many mathematicians did not accept this form of proof, but it has become more widely accepted. The mathematician Doron Zeilberger has even gone so far as to claim that these are possibly the only nontrivial results that mathematicians have ever proved.[11] Many mathematical theorems can be reduced to more straightforward computation, including polynomial identities, trigonometric identities[e] and hypergeometric identities.[12]

Relation with scientific theories

[edit]

Theorems in mathematics and theories in science are fundamentally different in their epistemology. A scientific theory cannot be proved; its key attribute is that it is falsifiable, that is, it makes predictions about the natural world that are testable by experiments. Any disagreement between prediction and experiment demonstrates the incorrectness of the scientific theory, or at least limits its accuracy or domain of validity. Mathematical theorems, on the other hand, are purely abstract formal statements: the proof of a theorem cannot involve experiments or other empirical evidence in the same way such evidence is used to support scientific theories.[6]

The Collatz conjecture: one way to illustrate its complexity is to extend the iteration from the natural numbers to the complex numbers. The result is a fractal, which (in accordance with universality) resembles the Mandelbrot set.

Nonetheless, there is some degree of empiricism and data collection involved in the discovery of mathematical theorems. By establishing a pattern, sometimes with the use of a powerful computer, mathematicians may have an idea of what to prove, and in some cases even a plan for how to set about doing the proof. It is also possible to find a single counter-example and so establish the impossibility of a proof for the proposition as-stated, and possibly suggest restricted forms of the original proposition that might have feasible proofs.

For example, both the Collatz conjecture and the Riemann hypothesis are well-known unsolved problems; they have been extensively studied through empirical checks, but remain unproven. The Collatz conjecture has been verified for start values up to about 2.88 × 1018. The Riemann hypothesis has been verified to hold for the first 10 trillion non-trivial zeroes of the zeta function. Although most mathematicians can tolerate supposing that the conjecture and the hypothesis are true, neither of these propositions is considered proved.

Such evidence does not constitute proof. For example, the Mertens conjecture is a statement about natural numbers that is now known to be false, but no explicit counterexample (i.e., a natural number n for which the Mertens function M(n) equals or exceeds the square root of n) is known: all numbers less than 1014 have the Mertens property, and the smallest number that does not have this property is only known to be less than the exponential of 1.59 × 1040, which is approximately 10 to the power 4.3 × 1039. Since the number of particles in the universe is generally considered less than 10 to the power 100 (a googol), there is no hope to find an explicit counterexample by exhaustive search.

The word "theory" also exists in mathematics, to denote a body of mathematical axioms, definitions and theorems, as in, for example, group theory (see mathematical theory). There are also "theorems" in science, particularly physics, and in engineering, but they often have statements and proofs in which physical assumptions and intuition play an important role; the physical axioms on which such "theorems" are based are themselves falsifiable.

Terminology

[edit]

A number of different terms for mathematical statements exist; these terms indicate the role statements play in a particular subject. The distinction between different terms is sometimes rather arbitrary, and the usage of some terms has evolved over time.

  • An axiom or postulate is a fundamental assumption regarding the object of study, that is accepted without proof. A related concept is that of a definition, which gives the meaning of a word or a phrase in terms of known concepts. Classical geometry discerns between axioms, which are general statements; and postulates, which are statements about geometrical objects.[13] Historically, axioms were regarded as "self-evident"; today they are merely assumed to be true.
  • A conjecture is an unproved statement that is believed to be true. Conjectures are usually made in public, and named after their maker (for example, Goldbach's conjecture and Collatz conjecture). The term hypothesis is also used in this sense (for example, Riemann hypothesis), which should not be confused with "hypothesis" as the premise of a proof. Other terms are also used on occasion, for example problem when people are not sure whether the statement should be believed to be true. Fermat's Last Theorem was historically called a theorem, although, for centuries, it was only a conjecture.
  • A theorem is a statement that has been proven to be true based on axioms and other theorems.
  • A proposition is a theorem of lesser importance, or one that is considered so elementary or immediately obvious, that it may be stated without proof. This should not be confused with "proposition" as used in propositional logic. In classical geometry the term "proposition" was used differently: in Euclid's Elements (c. 300 BCE), all theorems and geometric constructions were called "propositions" regardless of their importance.
  • A lemma is an "accessory proposition" - a proposition with little applicability outside its use in a particular proof. Over time a lemma may gain in importance and be considered a theorem, though the term "lemma" is usually kept as part of its name (e.g. Gauss's lemma, Zorn's lemma, and the fundamental lemma).
  • A corollary is a proposition that follows immediately from another theorem or axiom, with little or no required proof.[14] A corollary may also be a restatement of a theorem in a simpler form, or for a special case: for example, the theorem "all internal angles in a rectangle are right angles" has a corollary that "all internal angles in a square are right angles" - a square being a special case of a rectangle.
  • A generalization of a theorem is a theorem with a similar statement but a broader scope, from which the original theorem can be deduced as a special case (a corollary).[f]

Other terms may also be used for historical or customary reasons, for example:

A few well-known theorems have even more idiosyncratic names, for example, the division algorithm, Euler's formula, and the Banach–Tarski paradox.

Layout

[edit]

A theorem and its proof are typically laid out as follows:

Theorem (name of the person who proved it, along with year of discovery or publication of the proof)
Statement of theorem (sometimes called the proposition)
Proof
Description of proof
End

The end of the proof may be signaled by the letters Q.E.D. (quod erat demonstrandum) or by one of the tombstone marks, such as "□" or "∎", meaning "end of proof", introduced by Paul Halmos following their use in magazines to mark the end of an article.[15]

The exact style depends on the author or publication. Many publications provide instructions or macros for typesetting in the house style.

It is common for a theorem to be preceded by definitions describing the exact meaning of the terms used in the theorem. It is also common for a theorem to be preceded by a number of propositions or lemmas which are then used in the proof. However, lemmas are sometimes embedded in the proof of a theorem, either with nested proofs, or with their proofs presented after the proof of the theorem.

Corollaries to a theorem are either presented between the theorem and the proof, or directly after the proof. Sometimes, corollaries have proofs of their own that explain why they follow from the theorem.

Lore

[edit]

It has been estimated that over a quarter of a million theorems are proved every year.[16]

The well-known aphorism, "A mathematician is a device for turning coffee into theorems", is probably due to Alfréd Rényi, although it is often attributed to Rényi's colleague Paul Erdős (and Rényi may have been thinking of Erdős), who was famous for the many theorems he produced, the number of his collaborations, and his coffee drinking.[17]

The classification of finite simple groups is regarded by some to be the longest proof of a theorem. It comprises tens of thousands of pages in 500 journal articles by some 100 authors. These papers are together believed to give a complete proof, and several ongoing projects hope to shorten and simplify this proof.[18] Another theorem of this type is the four color theorem whose computer generated proof is too long for a human to read.[19]

Theorems in logic

[edit]

In mathematical logic, a formal theory is a set of sentences within a formal language. A sentence is a well-formed formula with no free variables. A sentence that is a member of a theory is one of its theorems, and the theory is the set of its theorems. Usually a theory is understood to be closed under the relation of logical consequence. Some accounts define a theory to be closed under the semantic consequence relation (), while others define it to be closed under the syntactic consequence, or derivability relation ().[20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29]

This diagram shows the syntactic entities that can be constructed from formal languages. The symbols and strings of symbols may be broadly divided into nonsense and well-formed formulas. A formal language can be thought of as identical to the set of its well-formed formulas. The set of well-formed formulas may be broadly divided into theorems and non-theorems.

For a theory to be closed under a derivability relation, it must be associated with a deductive system that specifies how the theorems are derived. The deductive system may be stated explicitly, or it may be clear from the context. The closure of the empty set under the relation of logical consequence yields the set that contains just those sentences that are the theorems of the deductive system.

In the broad sense in which the term is used within logic, a theorem does not have to be true, since the theory that contains it may be unsound relative to a given semantics, or relative to the standard interpretation of the underlying language. A theory that is inconsistent has all sentences as theorems.

The definition of theorems as sentences of a formal language is useful within proof theory, which is a branch of mathematics that studies the structure of formal proofs and the structure of provable formulas. It is also important in model theory, which is concerned with the relationship between formal theories and structures that are able to provide a semantics for them through interpretation.

Although theorems may be uninterpreted sentences, in practice mathematicians are more interested in the meanings of the sentences, i.e. in the propositions they express. What makes formal theorems useful and interesting is that they may be interpreted as true propositions and their derivations may be interpreted as a proof of their truth. A theorem whose interpretation is a true statement about a formal system (as opposed to within a formal system) is called a metatheorem.

Some important theorems in mathematical logic are:

Syntax and semantics

[edit]
Main articles: Syntax (logic) and Formal semantics (logic)

The concept of a formal theorem is fundamentally syntactic, in contrast to the notion of a true proposition, which introduces semantics. Different deductive systems can yield other interpretations, depending on the presumptions of the derivation rules (i.e. belief, justification or other modalities). The soundness of a formal system depends on whether or not all of its theorems are also validities. A validity is a formula that is true under any possible interpretation (for example, in classical propositional logic, validities are tautologies). A formal system is considered semantically complete when all of its theorems are also tautologies.

Interpretation of a formal theorem

[edit]
Main article: Interpretation (logic)

Theorems and theories

[edit]
Main articles: Theory and Theory (mathematical logic)

See also

[edit]

Citations

[edit]

Notes

[edit]
  1. ^ In general, the distinction is weak, as the standard way to prove that a statement is provable consists of proving it. However, in mathematical logic, one considers often the set of all theorems of a theory, although one cannot prove them individually.
  2. ^ An exception is the original Wiles's proof of Fermat's Last Theorem, which relies implicitly on Grothendieck universes, whose existence requires the addition of a new axiom to set theory.[4] This reliance on a new axiom of set theory has since been removed.[5] Nevertheless, it is rather astonishing that the first proof of a statement expressed in elementary arithmetic involves the existence of very large infinite sets.
  3. ^ A theory is often identified with the set of its theorems. This is avoided here for clarity, and also for not depending on set theory.
  4. ^ However, both theorems and scientific law are the result of investigations. See Heath 1897, p. clxxxii, Introduction, The terminology of Archimedes: "theorem (θεὼρνμα) from θεωρεἳν to investigate"
  5. ^ Such as the derivation of the formula for from the addition formulas of sine and cosine.
  6. ^ Often, when the less general or "corollary"-like theorem is proven first, it is because the proof of the more general form requires the simpler, corollary-like form, for use as a what is functionally a lemma, or "helper" theorem.
  7. ^ The word law can also refer to an axiom, a rule of inference, or, in probability theory, a probability distribution.

References

[edit]
  1. ^ Elisha Scott Loomis. "The Pythagorean proposition: its demonstrations analyzed and classified, and bibliography of sources for data of the four kinds of proofs" (PDF). Education Resources Information Center. Institute of Education Sciences (IES) of the U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved 2010-09-26. Originally published in 1940 and reprinted in 1968 by National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
  2. ^ "Theorem". Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary. Merriam-Webster. Retrieved 1 December 2024.
  3. ^ "Theorem | Definition of Theorem by Lexico". Lexico Dictionaries | English. Archived from the original on November 2, 2019. Retrieved 2019-11-02.
  4. ^ McLarty, Colin (2010). "What does it take to prove Fermat's last theorem? Grothendieck and the logic of number theory". The Review of Symbolic Logic. 13 (3). Cambridge University Press: 359–377. doi:10.2178/bsl/1286284558. S2CID 13475845.
  5. ^ McLarty, Colin (2020). "The large structures of Grothendieck founded on finite order arithmetic". Bulletin of Symbolic Logic. 16 (2). Cambridge University Press: 296–325. arXiv:1102.1773. doi:10.1017/S1755020319000340. S2CID 118395028.
  6. ^ a b Markie, Peter (2017), "Rationalism vs. Empiricism", in Zalta, Edward N. (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2017 ed.), Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University, retrieved 2019-11-02
  7. ^ Weisstein, Eric W. "Theorem". MathWorld.
  8. ^ a b Darmon, Henri; Diamond, Fred; Taylor, Richard (2007-09-09). "Fermat's Last Theorem" (PDF). McGill University – Department of Mathematics and Statistics. Retrieved 2019-11-01.
  9. ^ "Implication". intrologic.stanford.edu. Retrieved 2019-11-02.
  10. ^ Weisstein, Eric W. "Deep Theorem". MathWorld.
  11. ^ Doron Zeilberger. "Opinion 51".
  12. ^ Petkovsek, Wilf & Zeilberger 1996, p. 17.
  13. ^ Wentworth & Smith 1913, Articles 46-7.
  14. ^ Wentworth & Smith 1913, Article 51.
  15. ^ "Earliest Uses of Symbols of Set Theory and Logic". jeff560.tripod.com. Retrieved 2 November 2019.
  16. ^ Hoffman 1998, p. 204.
  17. ^ Hoffman 1998, p. 7.
  18. ^ An enormous theorem: the classification of finite simple groups, Richard Elwes, Plus Magazine, Issue 41 December 2006.
  19. ^ Appel, K.; Haken, W. (1977). "The Solution of the Four-Color Map Problem". Sci. Am. 237 (4): 108–121. Bibcode:1977SciAm.237d.108A. doi:10.1038/scientificamerican1077-108. JSTOR 24953967. See p. 108: "The computations of the proof make it longer than has traditionally been considered acceptable. In fact, the correctness of the proof cannot be checked without the aid of a computer."
  20. ^ Boolos, Burgess & Jeffrey 2007, p. 191.
  21. ^ Chiswell & Hodges 2007, p. 172.
  22. ^ Enderton 2001, p. 148.
  23. ^ Hedman 2004, p. 89.
  24. ^ Hinman 2005, p. 139.
  25. ^ Hodges 1993, p. 33.
  26. ^ Johnstone 1987, p. 21.
  27. ^ Monk 1976, p. 208.
  28. ^ Rautenberg 2010, p. 81.
  29. ^ van Dalen 1994, p. 104.

Works cited

[edit]
  • Boolos, George; Burgess, John; Jeffrey, Richard (2007). Computability and Logic (5th ed.). Cambridge University Press.
  • Enderton, Herbert (2001). A Mathematical Introduction to Logic (2nd ed.). Harcourt Academic Press.
  • Heath, Sir Thomas Little (1897). The works of Archimedes. Dover. Retrieved 2009-11-15.
  • Hedman, Shawn (2004). A First Course in Logic. Oxford University Press.
  • Hinman, Peter (2005). Fundamentals of Mathematical Logic. Wellesley, MA: A K Peters.
  • Hoffman, Paul (1998). The Man Who Loved Only Numbers: The Story of Paul Erdős and the Search for Mathematical Truth. Hyperion, New York. ISBN 1-85702-829-5.
  • Hodges, Wilfrid (1993). Model Theory. Cambridge University Press.
  • Johnstone, P. T. (1987). Notes on Logic and Set Theory. Cambridge University Press.
  • Monk, J. Donald (1976). Mathematical Logic. Springer-Verlag.
  • Petkovsek, Marko; Wilf, Herbert; Zeilberger, Doron (1996). A = B (PDF). A.K. Peters, Wellesley, Massachusetts. ISBN 1-56881-063-6.
  • Rautenberg, Wolfgang (2010). A Concise Introduction to Mathematical Logic (3rd ed.). Springer.
  • van Dalen, Dirk (1994). Logic and Structure (3rd ed.). Springer-Verlag.
  • Wentworth, G.; Smith, D.E. (1913). Plane Geometry. Ginn & Co.

Further reading

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Theorem

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
In , a theorem is a declarative statement that has been rigorously proven to be true through a of logical deductions from axioms, definitions, and previously established theorems or propositions. This proof process distinguishes theorems from conjectures or hypotheses, which remain unproven, and ensures their universal validity within the given axiomatic framework. Theorems often encapsulate significant insights or relationships in mathematical structures, serving as building blocks for more complex theories. The importance of theorems lies in their role as the core of mathematical rigor and discovery, providing verifiable truths that underpin scientific and applications while fostering advancements across disciplines like physics, , and . Unlike empirical observations, theorems offer absolute certainty once proven, though their proofs can vary in complexity from elementary deductions to multi-year endeavors involving advanced techniques. Notable examples include the , which relates the sides of right triangles, and the , linking differentiation and integration; these illustrate how theorems resolve longstanding problems and unify disparate concepts. Historically, the formal concept of a theorem emerged in around the 4th century BCE, with credited as one of the earliest to employ the term theōrēma—meaning "spectacle" or "contemplation"—to describe proven geometric propositions in works like . This development marked a shift from in earlier civilizations, such as Babylonian and Egyptian , toward deductive systems that prioritize logical proof over mere verification. Over centuries, the notion evolved through contributions from Islamic scholars like and European mathematicians during the , culminating in modern formalism influenced by 19th- and 20th-century logicists like and , whose incompleteness theorems revealed inherent limitations in fully axiomatizing arithmetic. Today, theorems continue to drive research, with ongoing proofs in areas like and highlighting their enduring centrality to mathematical progress.

Fundamental Concepts

Definition

In and formal logic, a theorem is a that has been established as true through from a set of axioms, postulates, or previously proven theorems. This distinguishes theorems from mere conjectures or hypotheses, which remain unproven. Theorems form the foundational building blocks of deductive systems, providing reliable truths upon which further derivations can be based. To understand theorems, it is essential to clarify prerequisite concepts. A proposition is a declarative statement that is either true or false, serving as the basic unit of mathematical discourse. An axiom (or postulate) is a fundamental assumption accepted without proof, often chosen for their self-evident nature or utility in constructing a coherent system. Deductive reasoning involves deriving specific conclusions from general premises, ensuring that if the premises are true, the conclusion must necessarily follow. Informal examples illustrate the concept outside rigorous proofs. Consider the statement "all s are unmarried," which functions as a trivial theorem in basic logic, derivable from the definitions of "" and "unmarried" without empirical verification. In , a simple theorem might state that in any , the sum of any two sides exceeds the third, proven deductively from axioms about line segments and equality. These examples highlight how theorems encapsulate insights gained through logical deduction rather than . The term "theorem" originates from the ancient Greek word theōrēma (θεώρημα), derived from theōreō (θεωρέω), meaning "to contemplate" or "to consider," implying a profound insight or spectacle revealed through reasoning. Its earliest prominent use appears in Euclid's Elements, composed around 300 BCE, where it denotes propositions demonstrated from initial axioms in the axiomatic development of .

Truth and Proof

In , a proof establishes the validity of a theorem as a finite of well-formed statements, where each statement is either an , a previously established theorem, or derived from prior statements via accepted inference rules. This deductive chain ensures that the theorem logically follows from the foundational assumptions of the , providing a rigorous justification for its truth. Common types of proofs include , proofs by contradiction, and . In a , one assumes the premises of the theorem to be true and proceeds step-by-step using definitions, axioms, and rules to derive the conclusion directly; for example, starting with given conditions and applying logical operations to arrive at the stated result. A proof by contradiction begins by assuming the of the theorem's conclusion, then derives a logical inconsistency—such as a statement and its —showing that the assumption must be false and thus the theorem holds. verifies a statement for all natural numbers by proving a base case (typically for n=1) and showing that if the statement holds for some k, it also holds for k+1, thereby extending the truth indefinitely. Theorems are necessarily true within their , meaning that if a theorem is provable, it holds in every model of the system provided the system is consistent. Truth here is relative to the system's consistency: in an inconsistent system, every statement becomes a theorem (via the principle of explosion), rendering the notion of truth vacuous, whereas consistency ensures that provable theorems align with the intended semantics. Verification of theorems relies on rigorous scrutiny and within the mathematical community to confirm the proof's correctness and adherence to logical standards. This process helps detect errors and builds collective confidence in the theorem's validity. However, in sufficiently powerful axiomatic systems, —arising from challenges to for formalizing mathematics—demonstrate that some true statements remain undecidable, meaning they cannot be proved or disproved within the system.

Formal Logic Perspective

Syntax and Semantics

In formal logic, the syntax of theorems pertains to their structure as well-formed formulas (WFFs) within a formal language, governed by precise grammatical rules that define valid constructions from primitive symbols and connectives. A formal language consists of an alphabet including logical symbols such as variables (e.g., x,yx, y), predicate symbols (e.g., PP), connectives like conjunction (∧\wedge), disjunction (∨\vee), implication (→\to), and quantifiers (∀,∃\forall, \exists), along with parentheses for grouping. Well-formed formulas are generated inductively: atomic formulas include predicates applied to terms (e.g., P(x)P(x)) or equality (t1=t2t_1 = t_2), while complex formulas combine these using connectives or quantifiers, ensuring unique readability through balanced parentheses and adherence to formation rules. Theorems, as syntactic entities, are those WFFs that can be derived from axioms using inference rules, such as modus ponens, which allows inferring ϕ\phi from ϕ→ψ\phi \to \psi and ϕ\phi. Semantically, theorems acquire meaning through interpretations or models that assign truth values to formulas within a structure. A model MM comprises a non-empty domain ∣M∣|M| and interpretations for non-logical symbols: constants map to elements in ∣M∣|M|, functions to operations on ∣M∣|M|, and predicates to relations over ∣M∣|M|. Satisfaction of a formula ϕ\phi in MM under a variable assignment ss (denoted M,s⊨ϕM, s \models \phi) is defined recursively—for instance, M,s⊨ϕ→ψM, s \models \phi \to \psi holds if whenever M,s⊨ϕM, s \models \phi, then M,s⊨ψM, s \models \psi, and M,s⊨∀xϕM, s \models \forall x \phi holds if M,s[m/x]⊨ϕM, s[m/x] \models \phi for every m∈∣M∣m \in |M|. A theorem is semantically valid (or a ) if it is true in every model of the , capturing necessity independent of specific interpretations. The distinction between and semantics underscores that concerns formal provability—whether a WFF can be derived mechanically—while semantics addresses truth in all possible models, potentially revealing gaps in incomplete systems where not all valid are provable. For example, the ∀x(P(x)→P(x))\forall x (P(x) \to P(x)) exemplifies a theorem: syntactically, it is a WFF derivable via axioms and rules like ; semantically, it is valid as it holds in every model, since for any interpretation of PP, the implication is a tautology over the domain. This duality forms the foundation for analyzing theorems in axiomatic systems.

Interpretation of Formal Theorems

In formal logic, the interpretation of a theorem involves assigning a concrete meaning to the syntactic elements of a formal language within a specific structure, known as a model. This process, central to model theory, requires selecting a non-empty domain (universe) of objects and defining an interpretation function that maps constant symbols to elements of the domain, function symbols to operations on the domain, and predicate symbols (including equality) to relations over the domain. For a formula to be valid under this interpretation, it must evaluate to true in the resulting structure; thus, a theorem—typically a formula provable from logical axioms—is valid if it holds in every possible model of the logic. This mapping bridges the syntactic provability of theorems to their semantic truth, revealing whether a purported theorem accurately reflects properties across all interpretations. The theorem ensures that systems for reliably connect provability to truth, stating that if a ϕ\phi is provable (⊢ϕ\vdash \phi), then ϕ\phi is true in every model M\mathcal{M} (i.e., M⊨ϕ\mathcal{M} \models \phi for all models M\mathcal{M}). This property holds for standard deductive systems like Hilbert-style or , where axioms are semantically valid and inference rules preserve validity. The proof proceeds by on the length of the proof: the base case verifies that all logical axioms are true in any model (e.g., instances of tautologies or quantifier axioms like ∀x ϕ(x)→ϕ(t)\forall x \, \phi(x) \to \phi(t) for suitable terms tt); the inductive step shows that applying rules such as or to valid premises yields a valid conclusion, as these operations maintain truth across all interpretations. thus guarantees that no false theorem can be proved, providing a foundational reliability to formal theorems. Gödel's completeness theorem, established in 1929, complements soundness by asserting that in first-order predicate logic, every formula that is semantically valid—true in all models—is also syntactically provable from the axioms (∀M⊨ϕ  ⟹  ⊢ϕ\forall \mathcal{M} \models \phi \implies \vdash \phi). Unlike soundness, whose proof is relatively straightforward via induction, Gödel's argument is more intricate, involving the construction of a "maximal consistent set" of formulas and a corresponding model (the canonical model) where unprovable formulas fail, but all valid ones succeed. This theorem implies that for first-order logic, the set of theorems precisely captures all semantic truths, allowing one to confirm the status of a formula as a theorem through semantic analysis alone, even without constructing a full syntactic proof; however, it does not extend to stronger systems like second-order logic or arithmetic, where incompleteness arises. Together, soundness and completeness establish semantic entailment as equivalent to syntactic provability, solidifying the interpretation of formal theorems as universally true statements. The model-dependence of interpretations highlights how the truth of non-theorem formulas varies across structures, underscoring the robustness of theorems, which hold uniformly. For instance, consider theorems from Peano arithmetic (PA), the axiomatic theory of natural numbers with symbols for zero, successor, , and . A theorem like ∀x(x+0=x)\forall x (x + 0 = x), provable in PA via the axioms, is true in the standard model N\mathbb{N} (natural numbers with usual operations). However, interpreting the same in the real numbers R\mathbb{R} (mapping successor to x↦x+1x \mapsto x+1, but without satisfying PA's induction schema, as R\mathbb{R} includes non-integers and lacks discrete induction) renders the formula true for the interpretation of . Basic properties like totality of ∀x∀y∃z(x+y=z)\forall x \forall y \exists z (x + y = z) also hold in R\mathbb{R}, but other PA theorems relying on induction, such as the discreteness of the order—∀x¬∃y(x<y∧y<S(x))\forall x \neg \exists y (x < y \land y < S(x)), where x<yx < y is defined as ∃z(z≠0∧x+z=y)\exists z (z \neq 0 \land x + z = y)—hold in N\mathbb{N} yet fail in R\mathbb{R} because the dense order allows elements between any xx and x+1x+1. Non-standard models of PA, such as those with infinite "natural" numbers beyond any standard integer, still validate all PA theorems due to soundness and completeness, but illustrate how interpretations can embed unexpected elements while preserving theorem truth, emphasizing that theorem validity depends on satisfaction across all models of the theory.

Theorems within Theories

In mathematical logic, a formal theory is defined as a deductive system comprising a formal language, a set of logical axioms, a set of specific non-logical axioms, and rules of inference, from which theorems are derived as statements that follow logically from the axioms. Theorems serve as the deductive extensions of the theory, systematically enlarging the body of provable statements beyond the initial axioms while preserving the theory's structure. A key property of such theories is consistency, which means that the theory does not yield a contradiction as a theorem; in other words, there is no formula that can be proved both true and false within the system. Kurt Gödel's first incompleteness theorem establishes that any consistent formal theory capable of expressing basic arithmetic, such as Peano arithmetic, cannot prove its own consistency from within the theory. His second incompleteness theorem further shows that no such consistent theory can enumerate all arithmetical truths, as there will always be true statements about arithmetic that are unprovable within the system. These results, from Gödel's 1931 paper, highlight fundamental limitations on the self-sufficiency of formal theories. Independence refers to statements that are neither provable nor disprovable within a given theory, meaning they can be added as new axioms without affecting consistency. A classic example is the parallel postulate in Euclidean geometry, which asserts that through a point not on a given line, exactly one parallel line can be drawn; this postulate is independent of the other four Euclidean postulates, as demonstrated by the existence of non-Euclidean geometries like , where multiple parallels are possible. This independence was rigorously established through model-theoretic constructions showing that both the postulate and its negation are consistent with the remaining axioms. Within formal theories, theorems often form a hierarchical structure, where foundational theorems are derived directly from the axioms, intermediate theorems build upon these foundational ones, and advanced theorems depend on chains of prior derivations. This layering reflects the cumulative nature of deduction, allowing complex results to emerge from simpler building blocks while maintaining the theory's overall coherence.

Epistemological and Philosophical Aspects

Theoremhood and Certainty

In mathematical logic, a theorem is defined as a well-formed formula that can be derived from the axioms of a formal system through a finite sequence of applications of the system's rules of inference, establishing its logical consequence within that system. This provability criterion ensures that theorems are not merely restatements of axioms but represent non-trivial extensions of the axiomatic foundation, requiring deductive steps beyond immediate acceptance. Furthermore, theorems exhibit universality, holding true across all models satisfying the axioms, thereby capturing general properties inherent to the system's structure. The certainty afforded by theorems is apodictic, denoting absolute necessity and irrefutability within the confines of the deductive system, in stark contrast to probabilistic or empirical knowledge that admits degrees of likelihood. This form of certainty arises from the rigorous chain of logical implications, guaranteeing that once proven, a theorem remains incontestable relative to the axioms and inference rules employed. However, Gödel's incompleteness theorems impose fundamental limitations on this certainty, demonstrating that in any consistent formal system capable of expressing basic arithmetic, there exist true statements that cannot be proven as theorems, thus revealing inherent incompleteness in achieving exhaustive provability. The status of a statement as a theorem is inherently relative rather than absolute, depending crucially on the selection of axioms; for instance, the sum of angles in a triangle equaling 180 degrees is a theorem in Euclidean geometry but false—and hence not a theorem—in non-Euclidean hyperbolic geometry, where the parallel postulate is replaced by an alternative axiom allowing multiple parallels. This relativity underscores that theoremhood is contextual to the axiomatic framework, with the same proposition potentially shifting from conjecture to theorem or vice versa across different systems. Borderline cases illustrate the dynamic nature of theoremhood, where long-standing conjectures transition to theorems upon successful proof. A prominent example is Fermat's Last Theorem, which posited that no positive integers aa, bb, and cc satisfy an+bn=cna^n + b^n = c^n for n>2n > 2; it remained unproven for over 350 years until provided a complete proof in 1994, elevating it to theorem status within . Another dimension involves computer-assisted proofs, such as the 1976 proof of the four-color theorem, which relied on extensive computational verification; these raise philosophical questions about whether such proofs confer the same level of human understanding and apodictic certainty as traditional deductions, though they are widely accepted as valid theorems.

Epistemological Considerations

In epistemology, theorems exemplify justified true beliefs, where the truth of a statement is established through rigorous deduction from axioms presumed to be self-evident or foundational within a formal system. This process aligns with the traditional tripartite analysis of knowledge as belief that is true and justified, as the deductive chain provides the warrant for accepting the theorem as knowledge, distinct from mere opinion or empirical conjecture. Skepticism toward theorems emerges from critiques questioning the reliability of axiomatic foundations. Willard Van Orman Quine's underdetermination thesis posits that no unique set of axioms or theories is fully determined by available evidence, extending holism to mathematics and implying that alternative axiomatic choices could yield incompatible yet empirically equivalent systems, thus undermining claims of absolute certainty in theorem derivation. Similarly, Imre Lakatos's framework of proofs and refutations portrays mathematical development as a dynamic, fallible process where initial proofs are challenged by counterexamples, leading to revisions that reveal the provisional nature of theorems and echo quasi-empirical skepticism about axiomatic indubitability. The limits of theorems are starkly illustrated by undecidability results, such as Alan Turing's 1936 demonstration that the for Turing machines is undecidable, proving that not every well-formed statement in arithmetic can be resolved as a theorem or its negation within a consistent . This has profound implications for philosophical stances: mathematical , which asserts the objective existence of abstract mathematical entities and truths independent of human construction, faces tension from the existence of undecidable propositions that elude proof yet may possess determinate truth values; in contrast, formalism, viewing as a syntactic game of symbol manipulation governed by rules, accommodates undecidability as a boundary on derivable outcomes without invoking metaphysical commitments to unprovable realities. Interdisciplinarily, theorems aid empirical knowledge validation by furnishing precise deductive structures that model and constrain scientific hypotheses, enabling the articulation of predictive relations in fields like physics without themselves functioning as contingent scientific laws subject to falsification. For instance, theorems from underpin general relativity's empirical predictions, offering justificatory rigor to observational data interpretation while remaining a priori within their axiomatic domain.

Relations to Broader Fields

Theorems in Mathematics

In mathematics, theorems serve as the primary output of research, encapsulating proven statements that extend and organize existing knowledge into hierarchical structures. For instance, advanced fields like build upon foundational axioms of arithmetic, where theorems derive more complex results from simpler ones, forming a cumulative body of verified principles. This hierarchical organization allows mathematicians to rely on established theorems as building blocks for further discoveries, distinguishing them from conjectures or unproven hypotheses. Prominent examples illustrate the diverse applications of theorems. The Pythagorean theorem states that in a right triangle with legs aa and bb and hypotenuse cc, a2+b2=c2a^2 + b^2 = c^2. One classical proof relies on similar triangles: dropping an altitude from the right angle to the hypotenuse divides the original triangle into two smaller right triangles, each similar to the original; the resulting proportions yield a2=c⋅pa^2 = c \cdot p and b2=c⋅qb^2 = c \cdot q, where p+q=cp + q = c, summing to c2c^2. Similarly, the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus links differentiation and integration, comprising two parts: the first asserts that if F(x)=∫axf(t) dtF(x) = \int_a^x f(t) \, dt for continuous ff, then F′(x)=f(x)F'(x) = f(x), proven via the limit definition of the derivative; the second states ∫abf(x) dx=F(b)−F(a)\int_a^b f(x) \, dx = F(b) - F(a), following from the first and the mean value theorem. Theorems are often classified by their assertive content, such as , , or . Existence theorems guarantee the presence of a solution without constructing it, as in the Brouwer fixed-point theorem, which nonconstructively proves a on a closed ball has a fixed point via . Uniqueness theorems affirm that only one object satisfies given conditions, often paired with existence results, such as in solutions to differential equations where initial conditions determine a sole trajectory. Classification theorems enumerate and describe all objects in a category, exemplified by the four-color theorem, which classifies planar maps as colorable with at most four colors; proven in 1976 by Appel and Haken using computer-assisted checks on over 1,900 reducible configurations in triangulations, it employed discharging methods to ensure unavoidable sets led to verifiable colorings. Although initially controversial due to its reliance on extensive computer calculations that could not be manually verified, subsequent independent verifications have affirmed its correctness. In modern , computers play a growing role in verifying theorems, particularly for complex proofs beyond human capacity. Interactive theorem provers like the Coq system enable formalization and machine-checked proofs, ensuring every step traces back to axioms; for example, Coq was used in 2005 to verify the four-color theorem independently of the original computation, enhancing confidence in results reliant on exhaustive case analysis. This computational verification addresses gaps in traditional proofs, supporting large-scale formalizations in areas like and .

Relation with Scientific Theories

In mathematics, theorems are established through from axioms, yielding absolute certainty within their . In contrast, scientific theories rely on inductive inference, where hypotheses are supported by but remain provisional and subject to falsification. This distinction is central to Karl Popper's demarcation criterion, which posits that scientific theories must be testable and potentially refutable by observation, unlike the unfalsifiable nature of mathematical theorems. Mathematical theorems often provide the rigorous foundation for scientific models, enabling precise predictions and interpretations. For instance, in , the for self-adjoint operators on Hilbert spaces guarantees that observables like have real eigenvalues, corresponding to measurable outcomes, thus integrating into the empirical framework of physics. Scientific theories sometimes employ theorem-like statements as approximations within limited domains, which may later be superseded by more comprehensive frameworks. Newtonian gravity, for example, functions as a deductive consequence within , accurately describing weak gravitational fields and low velocities, but it approximates the curved geometry of , which resolves inconsistencies in extreme conditions. Contemporary philosophy of incorporates Bayesian to evaluate theorem-like hypotheses, updating their probability based on accumulating rather than seeking definitive proof or falsification alone. This approach treats scientific claims as having degrees of support, allowing for incremental refinement akin to how mathematical theorems anchor but do not exhaust scientific understanding.

Terminology and Presentation

Terminology

In mathematics, a theorem is a statement that can be demonstrated to be true through accepted mathematical operations and arguments, often embodying a general principle within a formal theory. Closely related terms include the lemma, defined as a preliminary or auxiliary theorem employed as a stepping stone to prove a more significant result; the corollary, which is a direct or immediate consequence of a theorem without requiring substantial additional proof; the proposition, a declarative statement that is typically of lesser prominence than a theorem and may or may not be proven; and the postulate, an unproven foundational assumption accepted as true to build further derivations. The terminology surrounding theorems traces its origins to ancient Greek mathematics, where Euclid distinguished theorems—statements establishing properties—from problems involving constructions. Etymologically, "theorem" entered English in the 1550s from Middle French théorème, via Late Latin theōrēma, and ultimately from Ancient Greek theōrēma ("spectacle" or "proposition to be proved"), derived from theōrein ("to look at" or "behold"). "Lemma" appeared in English around the 1560s, from Greek lēm ma ("something taken" or "argument"), rooted in lambanein ("to take"). "Corollary" dates to the late 14th century, from Late Latin corollarium ("deduction" or "gift"), a diminutive of corolla ("small garland"), implying an added consequence like a reward. "Postulate" emerged in the 1580s as a noun, from Latin postulātum ("demand" or "request"), the neuter past participle of postulare ("to demand"), reflecting its role as an assumed premise. Finally, "proposition" entered English in the mid-14th century from Old French proposicion, via Latin propositio ("a setting forth"), from proponere ("to put forth"). Over time, these terms have standardized in modern usage, though their precise application can vary by context, evolving from classical geometry to contemporary axiomatic frameworks. In non-English mathematical literature, synonyms for "theorem" include Satz in German, literally meaning "sentence" or "set statement" and used for proven assertions since the , and théorème in French, a direct retaining the Greek root. These equivalents highlight the term's international adoption while preserving its core meaning as a demonstrated truth. Standard conventions for presenting theorems in mathematical writing emphasize clarity and . The label "Theorem" is typically set in boldface, with the statement itself in italics, followed by a proof section. Numbering is sequential within chapters or sections, such as "Theorem 1.2," to facilitate cross-references, often sharing the scheme with lemmas, corollaries, and propositions. Field-specific conventions influence the term's application. In mathematical logic, "theorem" denotes a formula derivable from axioms via a deductive system's rules of inference, ensuring strict provability within the formal framework. In physics, by contrast, the term is applied more flexibly to important derived results or principles, such as conservation theorems, which may rely on empirical validation or approximate rigor rather than complete formal proof.

Layout and Notation

In mathematical writing, theorems are conventionally presented with a clear distinction between the statement and its proof to enhance readability and logical flow. The theorem statement is typically formatted in italics or boldface, often preceded by a label such as "Theorem" and a number, and set off as a displayed block. For instance, in LaTeX, this is achieved using environments like \begin{theorem}...\end{theorem}, which automatically handles italicization of the body text and bold numbering of the header. This layout ensures the assertion stands out, allowing readers to grasp the claim before engaging with the justification. Proofs follow immediately after the statement, introduced by the word "Proof" in italics or bold, with the body in upright roman font to differentiate it from the theorem's italic text. The proof concludes with a notation indicating completion, most commonly the Q.E.D. symbol, a black square (∎ or ■), known as the "tombstone" or "Halmos symbol," which originated from magazine end-markers and was popularized by mathematician in the 1950s. In , this is managed via the \qedsymbol command, defaulting to a hollow square but customizable to a filled one for emphasis. Numbering schemes, such as "Theorem 3.1" (indicating the first theorem in section 3), provide precise referencing and are standard in both print and digital formats, often resetting per section or chapter. Variations in presentation arise between journals and textbooks. Journal articles, guided by styles like the , favor concise layouts with flush-left theorems in 10-point bold headers and minimal spacing, prioritizing brevity for and efficiency. Textbooks, conversely, employ more expansive formatting, such as indented proofs with detailed explanations and examples, to support pedagogical goals, as recommended in writing guides for clarity and audience adaptation. Online resources introduce further adaptations; for example, ProofWiki structures theorem pages with dedicated sections for statements, proofs, and references, using hierarchical categories and for linked content, facilitating collaborative editing and navigation. Contemporary trends emphasize accessibility through interactive digital formats, moving beyond static print-focused layouts. In proof assistants like Lean, formalized theorems in libraries such as mathlib allow users to explore proofs step-by-step via interactive interfaces, verifying claims in real-time and integrating visualizations, which enhances understanding for diverse audiences including students and researchers. This approach addresses limitations of traditional typesetting by enabling dynamic exploration without altering core notation conventions.

Historical and Cultural Dimensions

Evolution of the Concept

The concept of a theorem emerged in as a formalized statement proven through logical deduction from axioms, with Euclid's Elements (c. 300 BCE) marking the first systematic collection of such propositions, primarily in , where over 465 theorems were derived deductively to establish foundational truths about shapes and figures. This work emphasized rigorous proofs, influencing the Greek tradition of viewing theorems as certain knowledge obtained via geometric constructions and syllogistic reasoning, setting a precedent for as a deductive . During the medieval period, Islamic scholars expanded the theorem concept beyond geometry into algebra, with Muhammad ibn Musa al-Khwarizmi's Kitab al-Jabr wa'l-Muqabala (c. 820 CE) introducing systematic methods for solving linear and quadratic equations, effectively presenting algebraic theorems as general rules for computation and balancing. This advancement preserved and augmented Greek knowledge while shifting focus toward algebraic structures, laying groundwork for theorems in non-geometric domains. In the Renaissance, René Descartes' La Géométrie (1637) further evolved the idea by integrating algebra with geometry, demonstrating that theorems could be expressed through coordinate systems and equations, allowing algebraic proofs of geometric properties and vice versa. The 19th and early 20th centuries saw the rise of formalism, exemplified by David Hilbert's Grundlagen der Geometrie (1899), which axiomatized to eliminate implicit assumptions in proofs, treating theorems as derivable consequences within strictly defined s to ensure consistency and completeness. This approach culminated in Kurt Gödel's incompleteness theorems (1931), which proved that in any sufficiently powerful , some true statements—potential theorems—cannot be proven within the system itself, fundamentally altering perceptions of theorem provability and the limits of deductive certainty. In contemporary , theorem provers like the Lean project (initiated in 2013 by ) have integrated with interactive verification, enabling machine-assisted discovery and formalization of theorems across fields, while recent AI advancements, such as DeepMind's AlphaProof (2024), which achieved silver medal performance at the using neural networks trained on proof corpora, accelerate hypothesis generation and validation in theorem development.

Lore and Naming Conventions

The practice of naming mathematical theorems after individuals, known as eponymy, emerged prominently in the post-Renaissance era as mathematical discoveries became associated with specific researchers rather than communal knowledge. Prior to this, ancient civilizations such as the Babylonians and favored descriptive that emphasized the theorem's content, such as Euclid's reference to geometric properties without personal attribution. This shift toward eponyms reflected the growing in European scholarship during the 17th and 18th centuries, leading to names like and . A key observation in the history of these naming conventions is , proposed by statistician Stephen M. Stigler in 1980, which asserts that no scientific discovery bears the name of its original discoverer. This "law," presented as an ironic principle rather than a strict rule, underscores frequent misattributions driven by later popularizers or cultural biases. For instance, the , named after the Greek philosopher (c. 570–495 BCE), was documented in Babylonian clay tablets from around 1800 BCE, demonstrating an understanding of the relationship a2+b2=c2a^2 + b^2 = c^2 for right triangles over a millennium earlier. Similarly, the , often attributed anonymously despite origins in Sun Tzu's 3rd to 5th century CE text , highlights Eurocentric tendencies in Western naming practices that overlooked non-European contributions. Cultural lore surrounding theorems often involves anecdotes of rivalry, , or ethical debates that enrich their historical narrative. , conjectured by in 1637 with a tantalizing marginal note claiming a proof too large for his book's margins, captivated mathematicians for 358 years until proved it in 1994; the story symbolizes the allure of unsolved problems and the persistence required in mathematical pursuit. In contrast, the Calabi-Yau manifolds, central to , were named in 1980 after Eugenio Calabi's 1954 and Shing-Tung Yau's 1977 proof. Modern discussions also critique eponyms tied to controversial figures, such as the Fisher-Tippett-Gnedenko Theorem, where Ronald Fisher's eugenics advocacy has prompted calls for descriptive renamings to promote inclusivity in . These tales illustrate how naming conventions not only honor achievements but also perpetuate cultural narratives, sometimes at the expense of accuracy or equity.

References

  1. https://users.math.msu.edu/users/duncan42/AxiomNotes.pdf
  2. https://math-sites.uncg.edu/sites/pauli/112/HTML/secdeftheoconj.html
  3. https://people.math.harvard.edu/~knill/teaching/math22a2018/handouts/lecture03.pdf
  4. https://www.math.uh.edu/~irina/MATH3336/3336Notes/3336S17.pdf
  5. https://people.math.harvard.edu/~knill/graphgeometry/papers/fundamental.pdf
  6. https://www.math.uh.edu/~dblecher/pf2.html
  7. https://www.cs.umd.edu/~gasarch/BLOGPAPERS/social.pdf
  8. https://www.math.wustl.edu/~sk/eolss.pdf
  9. https://math.stanford.edu/~feferman/impact.pdf
  10. https://www.math.fsu.edu/~pkirby/mad2104/SlideShow/s2_1.pdf
  11. https://www.math.uh.edu/~blerina/math3325/3325vern.pdf
  12. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/analytic-synthetic/
  13. https://sites.math.washington.edu/~king/coursedir/m444a03/notes/10-03-Triangle-Inequality.html
  14. https://www.math.uci.edu/~ndonalds/math184/greece.pdf
  15. https://aleph0.clarku.edu/~djoyce/elements/toc.html
  16. https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/6-042j-mathematics-for-computer-science-fall-2005/4f569e604a18133ca025a28754fc1f09_ln1.pdf
  17. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/mathematics/mathematical-proof
  18. https://richardhammack.github.io/BookOfProof/Main.pdf
  19. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/proof-theory/
  20. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-paraconsistent/
  21. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28029799/
  22. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hilbert-program/
  23. https://builds.openlogicproject.org/content/first-order-logic/syntax-and-semantics/syntax-and-semantics.pdf
  24. https://www.princeton.edu/~fraassen/books/pdfs/Formal%20Semantics%20and%20Logic.pdf
  25. https://mathweb.ucsd.edu/~sbuss/ResearchWeb/handbookI/ChapterI.pdf
  26. https://www.math.toronto.edu/weiss/model_theory.pdf
  27. https://community.wvu.edu/~krsubramani/courses/sp09/cc/lecnotes/completeness.pdf
  28. https://statics.scnu.edu.cn/pics/logic/2022/1124/1669263286180969.pdf
  29. https://www.math.uchicago.edu/~may/VIGRE/VIGRE2009/REUPapers/Chaiken.pdf
  30. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/240905509_The_completeness_theorem_of_Godel
  31. https://math.hawaii.edu/~ross/fun_with_nsmodels.pdf
  32. https://akruckman.faculty.wesleyan.edu/files/2020/05/Lecture-Notes.pdf
  33. https://www3.cs.stonybrook.edu/~cse371/11bch11.pdf
  34. https://encyclopediaofmath.org/wiki/Consistency
  35. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/goedel-incompleteness/
  36. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2020/entries/epistemology-geometry/
  37. https://sgslogic.net/t20/papers/gh.pdf
  38. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-provability/
  39. https://iep.utm.edu/k-logic/
  40. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/formalism-mathematics/
  41. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/epistemology-geometry/
  42. https://mathshistory.st-andrews.ac.uk/HistTopics/Fermat's_last_theorem
  43. https://academic.oup.com/philmat/article/16/3/374/1520713
  44. https://www.jstor.org/stable/23012955
  45. https://philpapers.org/rec/QUITDO-3
  46. https://e.math.cornell.edu/people/mann/classes/chicago/Lakatos.pdf
  47. https://www.cs.virginia.edu/~robins/Turing_Paper_1936.pdf
  48. https://arxiv.org/pdf/math/0407529
  49. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/philosophy-of-science/article/new-role-for-mathematics-in-empirical-sciences/75BD5525A79D489A9BEA7E974611F501
  50. https://mathworld.wolfram.com/Theorem.html
  51. https://www.ams.org/journals/notices/200811/tx081101370p.pdf
  52. https://mathworld.wolfram.com/PythagoreanTheorem.html
  53. https://mathworld.wolfram.com/FundamentalTheoremsofCalculus.html
  54. https://mathworld.wolfram.com/ExistenceTheorem.html
  55. https://mathworld.wolfram.com/UniquenessTheorem.html
  56. https://www.ams.org/bull/1976-82-05/S0002-9904-1976-14122-5/S0002-9904-1976-14122-5.pdf
  57. https://coq.inria.fr/
  58. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/popper/
  59. https://arxiv.org/abs/2211.12742
  60. https://www.einstein-online.info/en/spotlight/postnewton/
  61. https://direct.mit.edu/qss/article/3/2/393/110636/The-confirmation-of-scientific-theories-using
  62. https://www.etymonline.com/word/theorem
  63. https://www.etymonline.com/word/lemma
  64. https://www.etymonline.com/word/corollary
  65. https://www.etymonline.com/word/postulate
  66. https://www.etymonline.com/word/proposition
  67. https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/theorem
  68. https://sites.math.washington.edu/~lee/Courses/441-2007/writing-proofs.pdf
  69. https://www.austms.org.au/Publ/JAustMS/JAustMS_writing.pdf
  70. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-classical/
  71. https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/mathematics-proof-vs-physicists-proof.373388/
  72. https://www.overleaf.com/learn/latex/Theorems_and_proofs
  73. https://math.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Linear_Algebra/Book%253A_Linear_Algebra_%28Schilling_Nachtergaele_and_Lankham%29/13%253A_Appendices/13.03%253A_Some_Common_Mathematical_Symbols_and_Abbreviations
  74. https://www.ams.org/publications/authors/AMS-StyleGuide-online.pdf
  75. https://www.southwestern.edu/live/files/4175-guide-for-writing-in-mathematicspdf
  76. https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-767/paper-10.pdf
  77. https://www.quantamagazine.org/building-the-mathematical-library-of-the-future-20201001/
  78. https://arxiv.org/pdf/1910.09336
  79. https://www.andrew.cmu.edu/user/avigad/Papers/formal_system_for_euclids_elements.pdf
  80. https://mathshistory.st-andrews.ac.uk/Biographies/Al-Khwarizmi/
  81. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/descartes-mathematics/
  82. https://mathshistory.st-andrews.ac.uk/Extras/Hilbert_books/
  83. https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/project/lean/
  84. https://deepmind.google/discover/blog/ai-solves-imo-problems-at-silver-medal-level/
  85. https://nautil.us/why-mathematicians-should-stop-naming-things-after-each-other-237951/
  86. https://www.ams.org/journals/bull/1985-12-02/S0273-0979-1985-15361-3/S0273-0979-1985-15361-3.pdf
  87. https://nyaspubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.2164-0947.1980.tb02775.x
  88. https://news.yale.edu/2016/04/11/3800-year-journey-classroom-classroom
  89. https://ima.org.uk/19127/mathematical-results-do-names-matter/
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.