6
$\begingroup$

The following (debatable) quote is attributed to Einstein:

"You do not really understand something unless you can explain it to your grandmother."

I feel very enlightened when there is a simple explanation of an important idea in mathematics. Below are some of my favorite ones.

My Question: Are there other explanations like this?

  • (Credit to my analysis professor, many years ago): The geometric series $\sum_{n=1}^{\infty} \frac{1}{2^n} = 1$ can be explained as follows: take a disc. Cut it in half. Now take half of the disc, and cut that in half. Repeat this process. Then we have $\frac{1}{2} + \frac{1}{4} + \frac{1}{8} +...$ disc. But we started out with a whole disc, so the total is a single disc!

Definitions, etc.

  • By "explanation," I am asking for a proof or a heuristic argument which is simple (in the sense defined below).

  • Ideally, the fact is a central part of some subfield of mathematics. (For instance, the geometric series is certainly an important example in calculus since it is the main idea behind many comparison tests. It is also the most basic example of a series that can be computed explicitly (besides perhaps telescoping series). ) The facts themselves must also be simple.

  • By "simple", I mean you can explain it to someone without any mathematical background (say a child under 10 years old). In particular, words like "derivative," "group," and "Riemann curvature tensor," are considered to be "too hard," but expressions like "speed/velocity," "symmetry" and "how much a surface/curve curves" are acceptable. (In this regard, words from elementary physics (e.g. Newtonian mechanics, electromagnetism, wave mechanics) are great, but quantum mechanics and relativity are too hard. Notions from middle/high school (e.g. Euclidean geometry) are great too.)

  • Simple pictures are okay too, although the picture cannot be too complicated. (Again, the main criteria here is that your average non-mathematical audience can understand it.)

$\endgroup$
6
  • $\begingroup$ i don't understand your examples. The first one is a proof that the sum of $2^{-n}$ is $1$, while the other two are interpretations (which give no mathematical insight) $\endgroup$
    – erz
    Commented Jun 17, 2020 at 6:00
  • $\begingroup$ @erz Thank you. I edited my question. $\endgroup$ Commented Jun 17, 2020 at 6:02
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Related Math.SE question: Visually stunning math concepts which are easy to explain. I think the only simple explanations (in your definition) are those who have a visual representation. Most 10 year olds don't even know what a square root is. $\endgroup$
    – Glorfindel
    Commented Jun 17, 2020 at 15:07
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ The first "proof" seems to put a lot of faith in that "dot dot dot". What if I started off by taking a square, keeping half of it, keeping 2/3 of what's left, keeping 3/4 of what's left, and so on? $\endgroup$
    – Yemon Choi
    Commented Jun 18, 2020 at 2:24
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ I’m voting to close this question because I think it is based on a false premises. "Proofs that anyone can understand" are more often than not "handwaving that could equally well justify claims that are false" $\endgroup$
    – Yemon Choi
    Commented Jun 18, 2020 at 2:26

1 Answer 1

7
$\begingroup$

Pythagoras theorem.

Albert Einstein wrote about two pivotal moments in his childhood. The first involved a compass that his father showed him when he was four or five. The second involved his early exposure to Euclidean plane geometry. He was impressed by the idea that a mathematical assertion could “be proved with such certainty that any doubt appeared to be out of the question”.

Steven Strogatz discusses a breathtakingly simple proof of the Pythagorean theorem whose provenance is traced to Einstein as a child. "Though we cannot be sure the following proof is Einstein’s, anyone who knows his work will recognize the lion by his claw."

Einstein's first proof.

The proof relies on the insight that a right triangle can be decomposed into two smaller copies of itself. That’s a peculiarity of right triangles. If you try instead, for example, to decompose an equilateral triangle into two smaller equilateral triangles, you’ll find that you can’t. So Einstein’s proof reveals why the Pythagorean theorem applies only to right triangles: they’re the only kind made up of smaller copies of themselves.

$\endgroup$
1
  • $\begingroup$ The New Yorker article on cutting a right-angled triangle into two smaller triangles says, "Their similarity becomes clear if you imagine picking them up, rotating them, and arranging them like so, with their hypotenuses on the top and their right angles on the lower left". However, the two little triangles need to be reflected to directly correspond in similarity to the larger triangle (unless picking up and putting down does this). $\endgroup$
    – Tom
    Commented Jun 17, 2020 at 15:19

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .