Skip to main content
MathOverflow

Return to Question

Edited numerous typos and grammatical mistakes, since the question was on the front-page anyway
Source Link
David White
David White
  • 30.3k
  • 9
  • 154
  • 250

(This question might be too vague, feel free to edit or vote for closing.)

In math there are usually lots of non-existence theorems. When some onesomeone presents such a theorem, one natural response is "why shall I even care", or "why should such a thing be impressive".

The problem is, in the case of a non-existence theorem, usually all examples are trivial. If you tell some undergrad non-contantconstant bounded entire functions don't exist, he/she will probably reply with a shrug. Similar thing happen to me and my friends when we talk about some fancier theorems. (Oror when I see a paper statedstating such a non-existence theorem like that). I feel like It'sit's really hard to convince people (or convince myself) "a priori this thing could exist, however by this awesome theorem it doesn't"doesn't."

I think people would be impressed if all hypothesis look innocent, like the one in the LiouvilleLiouville's theorem on entire functions, or maybe the fact that people have seen the existence of differentiable bounded non-constant functions helps. In general it is not necessary that all hypothesis look friendly. How would one figure out whether a non-existence theorem is a good one or is true just because one of the hypothesis is insanely strong?

(This question might be too vague, feel free to edit or vote for closing.)

In math there are usually lots of non-existence theorems. When some one presents such a theorem, one natural response is "why shall I even care", or "why should such a thing be impressive".

The problem is, in the case of a non-existence theorem, usually all examples are trivial. If you tell some undergrad non-contant bounded entire functions don't exist, he/she will probably reply with a shrug. Similar thing happen to me and my friends when we talk about some fancier theorems. (Or when I see a paper stated a theorem like that) I feel like It's really hard to convince people (or convince myself) "a priori this thing could exist, however by this awesome theorem it doesn't".

I think people would be impressed if all hypothesis look innocent, like the one in the Liouville theorem on entire functions, or maybe the fact that people have seen the existence of differentiable bounded non-constant functions helps. In general not necessary that all hypothesis look friendly. How would one figure out whether a non-existence theorem is a good one or is true just because one of the hypothesis is insanely strong?

(This question might be too vague, feel free to edit or vote for closing.)

In math there are usually lots of non-existence theorems. When someone presents such a theorem, one natural response is "why shall I even care", or "why should such a thing be impressive".

The problem is, in the case of a non-existence theorem, usually all examples are trivial. If you tell some undergrad non-constant bounded entire functions don't exist, he/she will probably reply with a shrug. Similar thing happen to me and my friends when we talk about some fancier theorems (or when I see a paper stating such a non-existence theorem). I feel like it's really hard to convince people (or convince myself) "a priori this thing could exist, however by this awesome theorem it doesn't."

I think people would be impressed if all hypothesis look innocent, like the one in Liouville's theorem on entire functions, or maybe the fact that people have seen the existence of differentiable bounded non-constant functions helps. In general it is not necessary that all hypothesis look friendly. How would one figure out whether a non-existence theorem is a good one or is true just because one of the hypothesis is insanely strong?

http://meta.mathoverflow.net/discussion/34/5/tag-mergerename-requests/#Item_28
Link
Federico Poloni
Federico Poloni
  • 20.2k
  • 2
  • 82
  • 120
Post Made Community Wiki
Source Link
Yuhao Huang
Yuhao Huang
  • 5.1k
  • 1
  • 39
  • 62

How do you present a non-existence theorem?

(This question might be too vague, feel free to edit or vote for closing.)

In math there are usually lots of non-existence theorems. When some one presents such a theorem, one natural response is "why shall I even care", or "why should such a thing be impressive".

The problem is, in the case of a non-existence theorem, usually all examples are trivial. If you tell some undergrad non-contant bounded entire functions don't exist, he/she will probably reply with a shrug. Similar thing happen to me and my friends when we talk about some fancier theorems. (Or when I see a paper stated a theorem like that) I feel like It's really hard to convince people (or convince myself) "a priori this thing could exist, however by this awesome theorem it doesn't".

I think people would be impressed if all hypothesis look innocent, like the one in the Liouville theorem on entire functions, or maybe the fact that people have seen the existence of differentiable bounded non-constant functions helps. In general not necessary that all hypothesis look friendly. How would one figure out whether a non-existence theorem is a good one or is true just because one of the hypothesis is insanely strong?