Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

New Orleans teenagers found a new proof of the Pythagorean Theorem

keith-mcnulty.medium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 287 posts

Re: New Orleans teenagers found a new proof of the Pythagorean Theorem

#21

Post by HL33tibCe7 »

secondcoming wrote: post #17
HL33tibCe7 wrote: post #9

> By all accounts, these two teenage math students are the exact opposite of the majority of the math establishment. They are female, they are African-American, and they come from an area which is not particularly renowned for producing high academic achievers. This is just an awesome turn of events and one which should inspire anyone — no matter what their ethnic, gender or socio-demographic background — that excell…

I don’t think Privilege matters in all cases, look at the background of Ada Lovelace.

It matters when you try and make the point that this case “should inspire anyone — no matter what their ethnic, gender or socio-demographic background“, as the article does

Re: New Orleans teenagers found a new proof of the Pythagorean Theorem

#23

Post by oceansea »

roywiggins wrote: post #5
oceansea wrote: post #3

[flagged]

There's no actual requirement for a proof to give you a "why." The steps just all have to be be logically correct and not accidentally, eg, assume what is to be proven. Lots of proofs are basically unhelpful at giving you a "why," that doesn't disqualify them from being a proof.

I was using Stanford’s definition. https://web.stanford.edu/class/archive/cs/cs103/cs103.1202/l...

Re: New Orleans teenagers found a new proof of the Pythagorean Theorem

#24

Post by oceansea »

ivan_gammel wrote: post #8
oceansea wrote: post #3

[flagged]

Can you elaborate on what is a proof in your opinion? Having a degree in applied physics and mathematics from MIPT I’m struggling to understand your point. It does look like a proof of the theorem to me.

https://web.stanford.edu/class/archive/cs/cs103/cs103.1202/l... I am using Stanford University’s definition.

Re: New Orleans teenagers found a new proof of the Pythagorean Theorem

#25

Post by pdpi »

uberman wrote: post #7
oceansea wrote: post #3

[flagged]

Apparently there are some university math professors such as Lozano-Robledo who disagree with you. I can't say if their proof will hold up under real peer review but I hope it does.

I can't see it failing to pass muster.

It's more complicated than most proofs of Pythagoras's theorem I know, but it's still simple enough that several people have reconstructed it from just a diagram and some basic notes on how it should work. For so many people to have now independently reconstructed it without anybody finding issues is a clear indication that, even if the way they wrote it up has mistakes, the core ideas are solid.

Re: New Orleans teenagers found a new proof of the Pythagorean Theorem

#26

Post by yCombLinks »

oceansea wrote: post #23
roywiggins wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's no actual requirement for a proof to give you a "why." The steps just all have to be be logically correct and not accidentally, eg, assume what is to be proven. Lots of proofs are basically unhelpful at giving you a "why," that doesn't disqualify them from being a proof.

I was using Stanford’s definition. https://web.stanford.edu/class/archive/cs/cs103/cs103.1202/l...

That's a misc slideshow from a class, not a formal definition.

Re: New Orleans teenagers found a new proof of the Pythagorean Theorem

#27

Post by JKCalhoun »

HL33tibCe7 wrote: post #21
secondcoming wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t think Privilege matters in all cases, look at the background of Ada Lovelace.

It matters when you try and make the point that this case “should inspire anyone — no matter what their ethnic, gender or socio-demographic background“, as the article does

That's not the way I took the article. Rather I took it to mean something slightly different:

Your ethnicity and/or gender should not be seen as a barrier to advanced mathematics.

There is a nuanced difference there.

Re: New Orleans teenagers found a new proof of the Pythagorean Theorem

#28

Post by threeseed »

oceansea wrote: post #23
roywiggins wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's no actual requirement for a proof to give you a "why." The steps just all have to be be logically correct and not accidentally, eg, assume what is to be proven. Lots of proofs are basically unhelpful at giving you a "why," that doesn't disqualify them from being a proof.

I was using Stanford’s definition. https://web.stanford.edu/class/archive/cs/cs103/cs103.1202/l...

That is not Stanford's official definition. That is the definition from one of their Computer Science lecturers.

I can't speak to it's accuracy but I would imagine better sources exist.

Re: New Orleans teenagers found a new proof of the Pythagorean Theorem

#29

Post by mathteddybear »

School-Cotton wrote: post #19

In the first paragraph under “Deriving lengths of the sides of the smaller triangle”, how do we know the length of the third side is 2a^2/b ?

"This" in "This leads to the third side of this triangle to be 2a²/b." means "the same line of reasoning".

it's not even trigonometry in that paragraph, just rudimentary proportions of similar triangles

Post reply on HN