Timeline for An example of a proof that is explanatory but not beautiful? (or vice versa)
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
5 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 13, 2022 at 6:21 | comment | added | Kevin | Perhaps I have badly misunderstood the premise of the question, but I don't find that proof very explanatory either. Allow me to illustrate: "Q: Why are all maps four-colorable? A: Because all maps can be simplified to one of these four-colorable cases. Q: Why are all of those cases four-colorable? A: Because they are." | |
| Jul 25, 2013 at 8:13 | comment | added | Qiaochu Yuan | In general I think arguments that involve a lot of casework tend not to be beautiful but could still be explanatory. | |
| Jul 24, 2013 at 19:18 | comment | added | Noah Snyder | This is a good example, but to play Devil's advocate for a moment, the argument basically comes down to discharging and Kempe chains and both of those are kinda beautiful (if old hat by the time of Appel and Haken). | |
| S Jul 24, 2013 at 18:24 | history | answered | Terry Tao | CC BY-SA 3.0 | |
| S Jul 24, 2013 at 18:24 | history | made wiki | Post Made Community Wiki by Terry Tao |