3Blue1Brown
The video discusses how visual proofs without rigorous logic can be misleading in mathematics, taking the examples of fake proof of surface area of a sphere and the incorrect visual proof of all triangles being isosceles. The presenter warns against relying solely on intuition and visual aids, emphasizing on the need for proof and logical rigor in mathematics. The video further explains the difference between the geometry of curved surfaces and flat spaces, emphasizing the danger of making assumptions without explicit confirmation and the subtleties of limiting arguments.
In this section, the speaker discusses three fake proofs in the increasing order of their misleading subtlety which translate a hard problem into an easier-to-understand but incorrect or incomplete situation. The first example being the surface area of a sphere, which uses a method of approximating the sphere into vertical slices. The true surface area is 4π R squared. The second example uses a classic argument claiming that the value of pi is four which is incorrect but instead teaches us a lesson about the limit of sequence of curves. The third example doesn't produce a false answer but rather highlights the differences between taking a limit and taking one of the steps within that limit.
In this section, the presenter gives an example of how visual proofs, without rigorous logic, can be misleading. He presents a Euclid-style proof claiming all triangles are isosceles to illustrate this point. Although obviously false as demonstrated by the visual diagram of the triangle, the proof uses various congruent relations to trick viewers into believing that it is true. This example illustrates the need for proof and logical rigor in mathematics and the danger of relying solely on intuition and visual aids.
In this section, the speaker explains why it's not okay to use the same technique as the one used to prove the pizza proof to prove the sphere proof. The problem is that the wedges from the sphere, if flattened out accurately and preserving their area, won’t look like triangles, but instead would bulge outward and the width across that wedge changes as the function of the angle phi from the z-axis down to a point on this wedge. Simply put, the geometry of curved surfaces is fundamentally different from the geometry of flat spaces. When you visually prove something, you have to be wary of lines that are made to look straight when you haven’t had explicit confirmation.
In this section, the speaker discusses the subtleties of limiting arguments, showing a counterexample of why the limit of lengths of curves is not necessarily equal to the length of the limit of curves. This is important to keep in mind when working with limiting processes, such as in calculus, and it emphasizes the need to be explicit about errors and to consider hidden assumptions and edge cases. Visual arguments and diagrams can be useful, but they cannot replace critical thinking in math.
No videos found.
No related videos found.
No music found.