Bridging the gap between application and proof
From: Todd Bandrowsky <anakin_at_unitedsoftworks.com>
Date: 12 Jun 2003 08:15:49 -0700
Message-ID: <af3d9224.0306120715.600f95e2_at_posting.google.com>
The proof for pythagorean's theorem is of one square inside the other. You put one square inside the other, slightly tilted so that the subtraction of the areas leave four triangles. Basically you walk through the known areas of the two squares, given the lengths of their sides, and work it until you get pythagoreans theorem. A nifty web site that shows it is here:
Date: 12 Jun 2003 08:15:49 -0700
Message-ID: <af3d9224.0306120715.600f95e2_at_posting.google.com>
The proof for pythagorean's theorem is of one square inside the other. You put one square inside the other, slightly tilted so that the subtraction of the areas leave four triangles. Basically you walk through the known areas of the two squares, given the lengths of their sides, and work it until you get pythagoreans theorem. A nifty web site that shows it is here:
http://mathforum.org/isaac/problems/pythagthm.html
There is of course a huge thread where I made the claim that a program could be a proof, and there are lot of people that vehemently disagree but without really saying why, except for the case of determinism. It bothers me that there is something magical about proofs such that they cannot be encoded.
I were to write a program that says c^2 = a^2 + b^2, what could I do with just that?
Received on Thu Jun 12 2003 - 17:15:49 CEST