Talk:Proof by exhaustion

controversy?[edit]

I don't think that proof by exhaustion itself is controversial at all among mathematicians -- but its application or use in particular circumstances (e.g. 4-colour theorem) IS controversial. I think it's important to make this distinction clear. The logical validity of proof by exhaustion is not in doubt, but its application and veracity in concrete cases by mortal humans is another matter. Revolver

Agreed. Specific applications of this method of proof may be controversial, but the method itself is not. Gandalf61 08:31, Nov 9, 2003 (UTC)

It may not be controversial to use but still may be seen as less valid from the point of view of understanding. It could be to do with the general mistrust of computers! skukok

Aside from that, one could mention, for example, chess problems, as a mid-range example where the proof is effectively exhaustive.

Charles Matthews 08:22, 9 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Yes - good example - I will expand the page at some point to include this (if no-one else gets there first !). Gandalf61 08:31, Nov 9, 2003 (UTC)

Merge from Case analysis[edit]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the concepts seem to be identical -- no reason to have two pages. I think Proof by exhaustion should be the main page (with Case analysis redirecting to it), as it is (I think) the more commonly used term, and there are more wikipedia pages linking directly to it. Dbtfz 04:35, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have a different opinion. Proof by exhaustion is a mathematical term that refers to a specific technique of mathematical proof. Case analysis is a more general term used in philosophy and logic. I think someone following the case analysis link from, for example, the article on casuistry would be surprised to find themselves in an article about mathematics. OTOH, if the proof by exhaustion article were made more general, then it would no longer match a mathematician's understanding of the term. I think the two articles should remain separate. Gandalf61 11:30, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the input, Gandalf61. You're probably right that the articles should remain separate. I'm going to remove the reference to case analysis in the first sentence of this article, since it seems to equate case analysis with proof by exhaustion. I'll leave the merge proposal up for a little while longer, though, just in case anyone else wants to chime in. Dbtfz (talk - contribs) 06:01, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, I'm just going to remove the merge proposal now. Dbtfz (talk - contribs) 06:04, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comfort me![edit]

The definition given says "...in which the statement to be proved is split into a finite number of cases...". This left me confused me because it seemed that inductive proofs dealt with infinite sets. Then I saw the proof for the modularity of cubes, illustrating exactly what I had thought. Personally I would prefer wording such as "...in which the statement to be proved is split into a finite number of cases or sets of similar cases..." It would have confused me less, and therefore I would expect it to confuse some other readers less. Any remarks? JonRichfield (talk) 15:34, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Summer Olympics[edit]

It only takes one counterexample to disprove a statement. For the statement "all Summer Olympics are held in years divisible by 4", 2020/2021 is that counterexample! Conclusion: a better example is needed. Mathmannix (talk) 14:06, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]