Cut the knot: learn to enjoy mathematics
A math books store at a unique math study site. Learn to enjoy mathematics.
Google
Web CTK
Best sites for teachers
Sites for teachers
Sites for parents
Terms of use
Awards

Interactive Activities
CTK Exchange
CTK Insights - a blog

Games & Puzzles
What Is What
Arithmetic/Algebra
Geometry
Probability
Outline Mathematics
Make an Identity
Book Reviews
Eye Opener
Analog Gadgets
Inventor's Paradox
Did you know?...
Proofs
Math as Language
Things Impossible
Visual Illusions
My Logo
Math Poll
Cut The Knot!
MSET99 Talk
Other Math sites
Front Page
Movie shortcuts
Personal info
Reciprocal links
Privacy Policy

Guest book
News sites

Recommend this site

Best sites for teachers
Sites for teachers
Sites for parents

Education & Parenting

Manifesto: what CTK is about Search CTK Buying a book is a commitment to learning Table of content Things you can find on CTK Chronology of updates Email to Cut The Knot Recommend this page

Inventor's Paradox

The more ambitious plan may have more chances of success
G. Polya, How To Solve It
Princeton University Press, 1973

Polya continues: ... provided it is not based on a mere pretension but on some vision of the things beyond those immediately present.

Mathematical discovery is seldom a single step process. Often it's indeed the case where answering a more general question is easier than finding an answer to a specific one. Later, on this page, we'll see a collection of examples that I'll be updating from time to time. I would appreciate your mailing me additional examples.

Oftentimes, however, solving a specific problem first may suggest, in a hindsight, a formulation of and a solution to, a more general one. I'll call such a situation

Inventor's Paradise

Both circumstances underscore investigative part of doing Mathematics or actually of any kind of problem solving:

  • before solving a problem, look around for other formulations, dig your memory for similar known facts
  • after a problem has been solved, make this experience an edifying one. Try to stash away as much information as possible. If, in the process, you run into a problem you can't solve right away, go for it - you won't regret it.

I'll call the latter situation

Inventor's Paradigm

Always look for new problems; especially after successfully solving one - you may get much more than you expected to start with.

Pairs of statements in which one is a clear generalization of another whereas in fact the two are equivalent.
  1. The Intermediate Value Theorem - The Location Principle (Bolzano Theorem)
  2. Rolle's Theorem - The Mean Value Theorem
  3. Existence of a tangent parallel to a chord - existence of a tangent parallel to the x-axis.
  4. The Maclaurin and Taylor series.
  5. Two properties of Greatest Common Divisor
  6. Pythagoras' Theorem and the Cosine Rule
  7. Pythagoras' Theorem and its particular case of an isosceles right triangle
  8. Pythagoras' Theorem and Larry Hoehn's generalization
  9. Combining pieces of 2 and N squares into a single square
  10. Measurement of inscribed and (more generally) secant angles
  11. Probability of the union of disjoint events and any pair of events
Pairs of statements in which one is a clear generalization of another and the more general statement is not more difficult to prove.
  1. Bottema's Theorem and McWorter's generalization
  2. Butterfly theorem
  3. Carnot's theorem and Wallace's theorem.
  4. Concyclic Circumcenters: A Dynamic View.
  5. Concyclic Circumcenters: A Sequel.
  6. Find a plane through a point outside of an octahedron such that the plane bisects the volume of the octahedron - same statement but replace octahedron with a solid with a center of symmetry
  7. A Fine Feature of the Stern-Brocot tree
  8. Four Construction Problems
  9. Lucas' Theorem and its variant
  10. Napoleon's Theorem and one theorem about similar triangles
  11. Four Pegs That Form a Square
  12. Pythagorean Theorem - General Pythagorean Theorem
Pairs of statements in which a more general is directly implied by a more specific one.
  1. 2D isoperimetric theorem - a similar theorem with a fixed line segment
  2. Construct a line tangent to two circles - find a tangent from a point to a circle
  3. Arithmetic mean of N numbers is never less than their geometric mean. N arbitrary and N=2n
  4. The equation xxx3 = 3 is no more difficult than x3 = 3
Problems that allow a meaningful generalization.
  1. In a plane, given 3n points. Is it possible to draw n triangles with vertices at these points so that no two of them have points in common?
  2. Lines in a triangle intersecting at a common point. Ceva's theorem.
  3. 5109094x171709440000 = 21!, find x.
    • A number is written with 81 ones. Prove it's a multiple of 81.
    • Prove that the number 1010101...0101, 81 ones and 80 alternating zeros, is a multiple of 81.
  4. Given a 1x1 square. Is it possible to put into it not intersecting circles so that the sum of their radii will be 1996?
  5. Criteria of divisibility by 9 and 11.
  6. The game of Fifteen and Puzzles on Graphs
  7. Weierstrass Product Inequality
  8. Fermat's Little Theorem and Euler's Theorem
Problems that allow more than one generalization.
  1. Pythagorean Theorem
  2. Napoleon's Theorem
  3. Fermat Point and Generalizations
  4. A problem in extension fields
  5. Butterfly theorem

Thus we see that generalization is quite useful and often enjoyable. It's a great vehicle for discovering new facts. However, if unchecked, generalization may lead to erroneous results. I'd call such situations

Inventor's Paranoia

Following are a few examples where attempts to generalize lead one astray. (There eventually will be a few.)

  1. Formula for prime numbers.
  2. Partitioning a circle.

I have allowed myself to swerve from Pólya's maxim: The more ambitious plan may have more chances of success. "The more ambitious" may not necessarily mean "the more general". Following are a few examples where a "more powerful, stronger" statement comes out easier to prove:

  1. Inequality 1/2·3/4·5/6· ... ·99/100 < 1/10.
  2. Inequality (1 + 1-3)(1 + 2-3)(1 + 2-3)...(1 + n-3) < 3.
  3. Inequality 1 + 2-2 + 3-2 + 4-2 + ... + n-2 < 2.

Copyright © 1996-2008 Alexander Bogomolny

28677863Page copy protected against web site content infringement by Copyscape


Search:
Keywords:


Latest on CTK Exchange
Math
Posted by Laura
2 messages
06:56 AM, Apr-15-08

Divisibility rules - Jargon buste ...
Posted by Carolyn
2 messages
08:35 AM, Apr-04-08

product of fractions
Posted by ke_45
3 messages
08:37 AM, May-06-08

Distance to the horizon
Posted by Monty
3 messages
04:38 PM, May-08-08

Mistake on the page (an aside, Be ...
Posted by Max
4 messages
10:28 AM, Feb-28-08

Nim Games - a query
Posted by Akash Kumar
1 messages
08:53 AM, Apr-15-08

A typo in
Posted by alexwajn
1 messages
11:36 PM, Apr-19-08