https://terrytao.wordpress.com/career-advice/be-sceptical-of-your-own-work/ [cropped-co] What's new Updates on my research and expository papers, discussion of open problems, and other maths-related topics. By Terence Tao * Home * About * Career advice * On writing * Books * Applets * Subscribe to feed Be sceptical of your own work An expert is a man who has made all the mistakes, which can be made, in a very narrow field. (Niels Bohr) If you unexpectedly find a problem solving itself almost effortlessly, and you can't quite see why, you should try to analyse your solution more sceptically. In particular, the method may also be able to prove much stronger statements which are known to be false, which would imply that there is a flaw in the method. In a related spirit, if you are trying to prove some ambitious claim, you might try to first look for a counterexample; either you find one, which saves you a lot of time and may well be publishable in its own right, or else you encounter some obstruction, which should give some clue as to what one has to do in order to establish the claim positively (in particular, it can "identify the enemy" that has to be neutralised in order to conclude the proof). Actually, it's not a bad idea to apply this type of scepticism to other mathematician's claims also; if nothing else, they can give you a sense of why that claim is true and how powerful it is. A sceptical attitude towards your own work should be especially enforced when dealing with a problem which is known to be difficult (and this includes most "famous problems"), or one which is outside your usual area of expertise. In particular, if your solution to that problem resembled this process: 1. Transform the difficult problem to another difficult problem. 2. Transform the problem again to yet another difficult problem. 3. ... 4. Transform the problem again to yet another difficult problem. 5. Transform the problem again. Suddenly the problem becomes much simpler! 6. Transform the simple problem to another simple problem. 7. ... 8. Transform the simple problem again to another simple problem. 9. Solve the last simple problem. Done! then there is almost certainly a major error in your argument in Step 5. (This is especially true if the difficulty of the transformed problem had been steadily increasing through steps 1-4.) At a bare minimum, this suspicious step should be thoroughly checked and rechecked, any hand-waving arguments near this step should be written out in full, and some analysis should be undertaken as to understanding what exactly was the decisive step in the argument that dramatically simplified the problem, and how that step could be so powerful as to achieve such a simplification. Here is another common type of suspicious argument: 1. To prove Famous Conjecture X, use reductio ad absurdum, and assume for sake of contradiction that X is false. 2. Do some random computations of tangential relevance to X. 3. Do some more random computations of this type. 4. ... 5. Do another random computation, but this time unwittingly make a sign error, division by zero, or similar mistake. 6. Do yet more random computations. 7. ... 8. Notice that two of your computations are inconsistent with each other. 9. Congratulations - you've obtained the desired contradiction. Declare victory! A good way to stress-test this sort of false argument is to try to run the same argument without the initial assumption that X is false. If one can easily modify the argument to again lead to a contradiction, it shows the problem wasn't with X - it was with the argument. A classic example here would be a "proof" that the existence of non-trivial natural number solutions to the equation a^n + b^n = c^n leads to a contradiction, which mysteriously fails to use in any significant way the hypothesis that n > 2 and would in fact would also work (perhaps after some small modification) for n=2 also. Another good practice is to take an argument that you first found using reductio ad absurdum, and try to untangle it to create a more direct proof that avoids reductio ad absurdum. If the argument is fairly "linear" in nature, this should end up with a simpler and more streamlined argument (which is part of the rewriting process in any event), and can often also catch errors of the type in Step 5 above. Another warning sign is if the computations lead you further and further away from the mathematical topics and connections that X is supposed to be addressing (e.g. a proposed proof of the Riemann hypothesis that proceeds almost entirely using the theory of meromorphic functions, with almost no reference to integers, primes, or other basic number-theoretic concepts; or, conversely, an argument that proceeds entirely by working with the integers, with barely any reference to the zeta function). A final type of warning sign is if your approach is based on adapting a method that has been used frequently in the past by many experts in the field, but with an additional twist of your own that all the previous experts somehow "missed". In such situations, there is a high probability that this twist contains a serious technical flaw that the previous experts were aware of and avoided, and a particularly high level of scepticism is warranted in such situations. For comparison, actual solutions to a major problem tend to be arrived at by a process more like the following (often involving several mathematicians over a period of years or decades, with many of the intermediate steps described here being significant publishable papers in their own right): 1. Isolate a toy model case x of major problem X. 2. Solve model case x using method A. 3. Try using method A to solve the full problem X. 4. This does not succeed, but method A can be extended to handle a few more model cases of X, such as x' and x". 5. Eventually, it is realised that method A relies crucially on a property P being true; this property is known for x, x', and x", thus explaining the current progress so far. 6. Conjecture that P is true for all instances of problem X. 7. Discover a family of counterexamples y, y', y", ... to this conjecture. This shows that either method A has to be adapted to avoid reliance on P, or that a new method is needed. 8. Take the simplest counterexample y in this family, and try to prove X for this special case. Meanwhile, try to see whether method A can work in the absence of P. 9. Discover several counterexamples in which method A fails, in which the cause of failure can be definitively traced back to P. Abandon efforts to modify method A. 10. Realise that special case y is related to (or at least analogous to) a problem z in another field of mathematics. Look up the literature on z, and ask experts in that field for the latest perspectives on that problem. 11. Learn that z has been successfully attacked in that field by use of method B. Attempt to adapt method B to solve y. 12. After much effort, an adapted method B' is developed to solve y. 13. Repeat the above steps 1-12 with A replaced by B' (the outcome will of course probably be a little different from the sample storyline presented above). Continue doing this for a few years, until all model special cases can be solved by one method or another. 14. Eventually, one possesses an array of methods that can give partial results on X, each of having their strengths and weaknesses. Considerable intuition is gained as to the circumstances in which a given method is likely to yield something non-trivial or not. 15. Begin combining the methods together, simplifying the execution of these methods, locating new model problems, and/or finding a unified and clarifying framework in which many previous methods, insights, results, etc. become special cases. 16. Eventually, one realises that there is a family of methods A^* (of which A was the first to be discovered) which, roughly speaking, can handle all cases in which property P^* (a modern generalisation of property P) occurs. There is also a rather different family of methods B^* which can handle all cases in which Q^* occurs. 17. From all the prior work on this problem, all known model examples are known to obey either P^* or Q^*. Formulate Conjecture C: all cases of problem X obey either P^* or Q^*. 18. Verify that Conjecture C in fact implies the problem. This is a major reduction! 19. Repeat steps 1-18, but with problem X replaced by Conjecture C. (Again, the storyline may be different from that presented above.) This procedure itself may iterate a few times. 20. Finally, the problem has been boiled down to its most purified essence: a key conjecture K which (morally, at least) provides the decisive input into the known methods A^*, B^*, etc. which will settle conjecture C and hence problem X. 21. A breakthrough: a new method Z is introduced to solve an important special case of K. 22. The endgame: method Z is rapidly developed and extended, using the full power of all the intuition, experience, and past results, to fully settle K, then C, and then at last X. 23. The technology developed to solve major problem X is adapted to solve other related problems in the field. But now a natural successor question X' to X arises, which lies just outside of the reach of the newly developed tools... and we go back to Step 1. See also "Learn the limitations of your tools", "Ask yourself dumb questions", "Think ahead", and "Use the wastebasket". Share this: * Print * Email * More * * Twitter * Facebook * Reddit * Pinterest * Like this: Like Loading... Recent Comments [9f0] Sr Sidney Silva on The convergence of an alternat... [bd5] kodlu on The convergence of an alternat... [d92] Anonymous on The convergence of an alternat... [cro] Zi Fen noShi Shi niHuai Yi De ninaru(2009Nian )... on Be sceptical of your own ... [] Anonymous Coward on Does one have to be a genius t... [a10] Josh on The strong law of large n... [124] michaelmross on Almost all Collatz orbits atta... [ab7] Emmanuel Audige on The convergence of an alternat... [] Anonymous on The convergence of an alternat... [358] Richard on The convergence of an alternat... [d7f] Terence Tao on The convergence of an alternat... [] Anonymous on The convergence of an alternat... [ebf] Snae on The convergence of an alternat... [d7f] Terence Tao on The convergence of an alternat... [pic] William Maugham on The convergence of an alternat... [ ] [Search] Articles by others * Andreas Blass - The mathematical theory T of actual mathematical reasoning * Gene Weingarten - Pearls before breakfast * Isaac Asimov - The relativity of wrong * Jonah Lehrer - Don't! - the secret of self-control * Julianne Dalcanton - The cult of genius * Nassim Taleb - The fourth quadrant: a map of the limits of statistics * Paul Graham - What You'll Wish You'd Known * Po Bronson - How not to talk to your kids * Scott Aaronson - Ten signs a claimed mathematical proof is wrong * Tanya Klowden - articles on astronomy * Timothy Gowers - Elsevier -- my part in its downfall * Timothy Gowers - The two cultures of mathematics * William Thurston - On proof and progress in mathematics Diversions * Abstruse Goose * BoxCar2D * Factcheck.org * Gapminder * Literally Unbelievable * Planarity * PolitiFact * Quite Interesting * snopes * Strange maps * Television tropes and idioms * The Economist * The Onion * The Straight Dope * This American Life on the financial crisis I * This American Life on the financial crisis II * What if? (xkcd) * xkcd Mathematics * 0xDE * A Mind for Madness * A Portion of the Book * Absolutely useless * Alex Sisto * Algorithm Soup * Almost Originality * AMS blogs * AMS Graduate Student Blog * Analysis & PDE * Analysis & PDE Conferences * Annoying Precision * Area 777 * Ars Mathematica * ATLAS of Finite Group Representations * Automorphic forum * Avzel's journal * Blog on Math Blogs * blogderbeweise * Bubbles Bad; Ripples Good * Cedric Villani * Climbing Mount Bourbaki * Coloquio Oleis * Combinatorics and more * Compressed sensing resources * Computational Complexity * Concrete nonsense * David Mumford's blog * Delta epsilons * DispersiveWiki * Disquisitiones Mathematicae * Embuches tissues * Emmanuel Kowalski's blog * Equatorial Mathematics * Erdos problems * fff * Floer Homology * Frank Morgan's blog * Gerard Besson's Blog * Godel's Lost Letter and P=NP * Geometric Group Theory * Geometry and the imagination * Geometry Bulletin Board * George Shakan * Girl's Angle * God Plays Dice * Good Math, Bad Math * Graduated Understanding * Hydrobates * I Can't Believe It's Not Random! * I Woke Up In A Strange Place * Igor Pak's blog * Images des mathematiques * In theory * Infinitely more * James Colliander's Blog * Jerome Buzzi's Mathematical Ramblings * Joel David Hamkins * Journal of the American Mathematical Society * Keith Conrad's expository papers * Kill Math * Le Petit Chercheur Illustre * Lemma Meringue * Lewko's blog * Libres pensees d'un mathematicien ordinaire * LMS blogs page * Low Dimensional Topology * M-Phi * Mark Sapir's blog * Math Overflow * Math3ma * Mathbabe * Mathblogging * Mathematical musings * Mathematics Illuminated * Mathematics in Australia * Mathematics Jobs Wiki * Mathematics Stack Exchange * Mathematics under the Microscope * Mathematics without apologies * Mathlog * Mathtube * Matt Baker's Math Blog * Mixedmath * Motivic stuff * Much ado about nothing * Multiple Choice Quiz Wiki * MyCQstate * nLab * Noncommutative geometry blog * Nonlocal equations wiki * Nuit-blanche * Number theory web * Online Analysis Research Seminar * outofprintmath * Pattern of Ideas * Pengfei Zhang's blog * Persiflage * Peter Cameron's Blog * Phillipe LeFloch's blog * ProofWiki * Quomodocumque * Ramis Movassagh's blog * Random Math * Reasonable Deviations * Regularize * Research Seminars * Rigorous Trivialities * Roots of unity * Science Notes by Greg Egan * Secret Blogging Seminar * Selected Papers Network * Sergei Denisov's blog * Short, Fat Matrices * Shtetl-Optimized * Shuanglin's Blog * Since it is not... * Sketches of topology * Snapshots in Mathematics ! * Soft questions * Some compact thoughts * Stacks Project Blog * SymOmega * Tanya Khovanova's Math Blog * tcs math * TeX, LaTeX, and friends * The accidental mathematician * The Cost of Knowledge * The Everything Seminar * The Geomblog * The L-function and modular forms database * The n-Category Cafe * The n-geometry cafe * The On-Line Blog of Integer Sequences * The polylogblog * The polymath blog * The polymath wiki * The Tricki * The twofold gaze * The Unapologetic Mathematician * The value of the variable * The World Digital Mathematical Library * Theoretical Computer Science - StackExchange * Thuses * Tim Gowers' blog * Tim Gowers' mathematical discussions * Todd and Vishal's blog * Van Vu's blog * Vaughn Climenhaga * Vieux Girondin * Visual Insight * Vivatsgasse 7 * Williams College Math/Stat Blog * Windows on Theory * Wiskundemeisjes * XOR's hammer * Yufei Zhao's blog * Zhenghe's Blog Selected articles * A cheap version of nonstandard analysis * A review of probability theory * American Academy of Arts and Sciences speech * Amplification, arbitrage, and the tensor power trick * An airport-inspired puzzle * Benford's law, Zipf's law, and the Pareto distribution * Compressed sensing and single-pixel cameras * Einstein's derivation of E=mc^2 * On multiple choice questions in mathematics * Problem solving strategies * Quantum mechanics and Tomb Raider * Real analysis problem solving strategies * Sailing into the wind, or faster than the wind * Simons lectures on structure and randomness * Small samples, and the margin of error * Soft analysis, hard analysis, and the finite convergence principle * The blue-eyed islanders puzzle * The cosmic distance ladder * The federal budget, rescaled * Ultrafilters, non-standard analysis, and epsilon management * What is a gauge? * What is good mathematics? * Why global regularity for Navier-Stokes is hard Software * Detexify * doi2bib * GmailTeX * Inverse Symbolic Calculator * jfig * LaTeX to Wordpress * Online LaTeX Equation Editor * Quiver commutative diagram editor * Sage: Open Source Mathematical Software * Subverting the system The sciences * Academic blogs * American Academy of Arts and Sciences * Australian Academy of Science * Bad Astronomy * National Academy of Science * RealClimate * Schneier on security * Science-Based Medicine * Seven warning signs of bogus science * The Royal Society * This week in evolution * Tree of Life Web Project Top Posts * Be sceptical of your own work * The convergence of an alternating series of Erdos, assuming the Hardy--Littlewood prime tuples conjecture * Career advice * Work hard * Does one have to be a genius to do maths? * Books * About * On writing * Don't prematurely obsess on a single "big problem" or "big theory" * Ask yourself dumb questions - and answer them! Archives * August 2023 (1) * June 2023 (8) * May 2023 (1) * April 2023 (1) * March 2023 (2) * February 2023 (1) * January 2023 (2) * December 2022 (3) * November 2022 (3) * October 2022 (3) * September 2022 (1) * July 2022 (3) * June 2022 (1) * May 2022 (2) * April 2022 (2) * March 2022 (5) * February 2022 (3) * January 2022 (1) * December 2021 (2) * November 2021 (2) * October 2021 (1) * September 2021 (2) * August 2021 (1) * July 2021 (3) * June 2021 (1) * May 2021 (2) * February 2021 (6) * January 2021 (2) * December 2020 (4) * November 2020 (2) * October 2020 (4) * September 2020 (5) * August 2020 (2) * July 2020 (2) * June 2020 (1) * May 2020 (2) * April 2020 (3) * March 2020 (9) * February 2020 (1) * January 2020 (3) * December 2019 (4) * November 2019 (2) * September 2019 (2) * August 2019 (3) * July 2019 (2) * June 2019 (4) * May 2019 (6) * April 2019 (4) * March 2019 (2) * February 2019 (5) * January 2019 (1) * December 2018 (6) * November 2018 (2) * October 2018 (2) * September 2018 (5) * August 2018 (3) * July 2018 (3) * June 2018 (1) * May 2018 (4) * April 2018 (4) * March 2018 (5) * February 2018 (4) * January 2018 (5) * December 2017 (5) * November 2017 (3) * October 2017 (4) * September 2017 (4) * August 2017 (5) * July 2017 (5) * June 2017 (1) * May 2017 (3) * April 2017 (2) * March 2017 (3) * February 2017 (1) * January 2017 (2) * December 2016 (2) * November 2016 (2) * October 2016 (5) * September 2016 (4) * August 2016 (4) * July 2016 (1) * June 2016 (3) * May 2016 (5) * April 2016 (2) * March 2016 (6) * February 2016 (2) * January 2016 (1) * December 2015 (4) * November 2015 (6) * October 2015 (5) * September 2015 (5) * August 2015 (4) * July 2015 (7) * June 2015 (1) * May 2015 (5) * April 2015 (4) * March 2015 (3) * February 2015 (4) * January 2015 (4) * December 2014 (6) * November 2014 (5) * October 2014 (4) * September 2014 (3) * August 2014 (4) * July 2014 (5) * June 2014 (5) * May 2014 (5) * April 2014 (2) * March 2014 (4) * February 2014 (5) * January 2014 (4) * December 2013 (4) * November 2013 (5) * October 2013 (4) * September 2013 (5) * August 2013 (1) * July 2013 (7) * June 2013 (12) * May 2013 (4) * April 2013 (2) * March 2013 (2) * February 2013 (6) * January 2013 (1) * December 2012 (4) * November 2012 (7) * October 2012 (6) * September 2012 (4) * August 2012 (3) * July 2012 (4) * June 2012 (3) * May 2012 (3) * April 2012 (4) * March 2012 (5) * February 2012 (5) * January 2012 (4) * December 2011 (8) * November 2011 (8) * October 2011 (7) * September 2011 (6) * August 2011 (8) * July 2011 (9) * June 2011 (8) * May 2011 (11) * April 2011 (3) * March 2011 (10) * February 2011 (3) * January 2011 (5) * December 2010 (5) * November 2010 (6) * October 2010 (9) * September 2010 (9) * August 2010 (3) * July 2010 (4) * June 2010 (8) * May 2010 (8) * April 2010 (8) * March 2010 (8) * February 2010 (10) * January 2010 (12) * December 2009 (11) * November 2009 (8) * October 2009 (15) * September 2009 (6) * August 2009 (13) * July 2009 (10) * June 2009 (11) * May 2009 (9) * April 2009 (11) * March 2009 (14) * February 2009 (13) * January 2009 (18) * December 2008 (8) * November 2008 (9) * October 2008 (10) * September 2008 (5) * August 2008 (6) * July 2008 (7) * June 2008 (8) * May 2008 (11) * April 2008 (12) * March 2008 (12) * February 2008 (13) * January 2008 (17) * December 2007 (10) * November 2007 (9) * October 2007 (9) * September 2007 (7) * August 2007 (9) * July 2007 (9) * June 2007 (6) * May 2007 (10) * April 2007 (11) * March 2007 (9) * February 2007 (4) Categories * expository (300) + tricks (12) * guest blog (10) * Mathematics (849) + math.AC (8) + math.AG (42) + math.AP (112) + math.AT (17) + math.CA (182) + math.CO (188) + math.CT (8) + math.CV (37) + math.DG (37) + math.DS (87) + math.FA (24) + math.GM (13) + math.GN (21) + math.GR (88) + math.GT (16) + math.HO (12) + math.IT (13) + math.LO (52) + math.MG (45) + math.MP (29) + math.NA (24) + math.NT (186) + math.OA (22) + math.PR (106) + math.QA (6) + math.RA (44) + math.RT (21) + math.SG (4) + math.SP (48) + math.ST (11) * non-technical (188) + admin (46) + advertising (60) + diversions (7) + media (13) o journals (3) + obituary (15) * opinion (34) * paper (236) + book (19) + Companion (13) + update (21) * question (125) + polymath (85) * talk (67) + DLS (20) * teaching (188) + 245A - Real analysis (11) + 245B - Real analysis (21) + 245C - Real analysis (6) + 246A - complex analysis (11) + 246B - complex analysis (5) + 246C - complex analysis (5) + 247B - Classical Fourier Analysis (5) + 254A - analytic prime number theory (19) + 254A - ergodic theory (18) + 254A - Hilbert's fifth problem (12) + 254A - Incompressible fluid equations (5) + 254A - random matrices (14) + 254B - expansion in groups (8) + 254B - Higher order Fourier analysis (9) + 255B - incompressible Euler equations (2) + 275A - probability theory (6) + 285G - poincare conjecture (20) + Logic reading seminar (8) * travel (26) additive combinatorics approximate groups arithmetic progressions Ben Green Cauchy-Schwarz Cayley graphs central limit theorem Chowla conjecture compressed sensing correspondence principle distributions divisor function eigenvalues Elias Stein Emmanuel Breuillard entropy equidistribution ergodic theory Euler equations exponential sums finite fields Fourier transform Freiman's theorem Gowers uniformity norm Gowers uniformity norms graph theory Gromov's theorem GUE hard analysis Hilbert's fifth problem hypergraphs ICM incompressible Euler equations inverse conjecture Joni Teravainen Kaisa Matomaki Kakeya conjecture Lie algebras Lie groups linear algebra Liouville function Littlewood-Offord problem Maksym Radziwill Mobius function Navier-Stokes equations nilpotent groups nilsequences nonstandard analysis parity problem politics polymath1 polymath8 Polymath15 polynomial method polynomials prime gaps prime numbers prime number theorem random matrices randomness Ratner's theorem regularity lemma Ricci flow Riemann zeta function Schrodinger equation sieve theory structure Szemeredi's theorem Tamar Ziegler UCLA ultrafilters universality Van Vu wave maps Yitang Zhang RSS The Polymath Blog * Polymath projects 2021 * A sort of Polymath on a famous MathOverflow problem * Ten Years of Polymath * Updates and Pictures * Polymath proposal: finding simpler unit distance graphs of chromatic number 5 * A new polymath proposal (related to the Riemann Hypothesis) over Tao's blog * Spontaneous Polymath 14 - A success! * Polymath 13 - a success! * Non-transitive Dice over Gowers's Blog * Rota's Basis Conjecture: Polymath 12, post 3 24 comments Comments feed for this article 14 June, 2008 at 11:40 am Zhe Deng Niu Ren Ye Zai wordpressShang Xie blog! << Just For Fun [3f3] [...] some to become overly obsessed with "big problems" or "big theories", others to lose any healthy scepticism in their own work or in their tools, and yet others still to become too discouraged to continue working in [...] Reply 6 April, 2009 at 8:11 pm Prerequisite levels << Matthew's Math Blog [...] 1 - A post with this label is intended to be for a general audience. It might look something like this. I don't plan on writing a lot of these, but we will [...] Reply 10 May, 2009 at 11:53 am Qiaochu Yuan [0de] I'm quite curious - can you give an example where that process actually occurred, preferably multiple times? I'm not really aware of any resources for finding out the full story behind how a conjecture - especially not a particularly well-known, but still important, one - was proven, so I (and I hope others as well) would find such an example quite valuable. Really the only good example I know of is the writeup of the Polymath project! Reply 10 May, 2009 at 4:26 pm Terence Tao [d7f] Dear Qiaochu, Actually most solutions to major problems (e.g. Poincare conjecture, Fermat's last theorem, etc.) have this sort of history - a painstaking series of explorations, conjectures, setbacks, steady accumulation of intuition and insights, realisation of the naivete of earlier approaches, etc. It is indeed difficult though to find a coherent narrative for any given one of these problems (except perhaps at conference talks, or an advanced survey article); usually the story is spread throughout a dozen papers, and one has to have a fair amount of familiarity with the problem to really appreciate the unfolding of progress. For some problems, though, there are some good surveys that focus on exactly this sort of narrative, e.g. Goldston-Pintz-Yildirim's "The path to recent progress on small gaps between primes". Milnor's Clay article on the Poincare conjecture covers the topological phase of the attacks on that problem fairly well, and the important discovery of the geometrisation conjecture, though it is rather light on the Ricci flow approach which is of course at the heart of Perelman's solution (but it is fair to say that this geometric approach would only have been seriously attempted after it became abundantly clear that the topological methods had fallen quite short of what was needed to settle the conjecture). Morgan's BAMS survey article on the subject covers the latter quite thoroughly, though the focus is more on the technical details than on the development of ideas. Finally, I discuss the narrative surrounding Szemeredi's theorem in my article "What is good mathematics?" (linked to on the sidebar of this blog). In a few days I will post my talk on the Kakeya conjecture, where the process has definitely been of the type of form described above, though of course we have not yet reached the end of that particular story yet. Reply 10 May, 2009 at 7:54 pm Greg Kuperberg [b92] There is a famous unpublished paper by the John Stallings entitled, "How Not to Prove the Poincare Conjecture". It was written in 1965 and Stallings also died not long ago, but the paper is still there on his home page. Click to access notPC.pdf It is true that combinatorial topology dominated people's attention to the Poincare conjecture until the work of Thurston, Hamilton, and Perelman. Moreover Thurston's work, which was more on the complementary, hyperbolic part of the geometrization conjecture, can be called half combinatorial topology and half differential geometry. It is also true that these traditional methods never really worked. However, I don't know of any strong reasons, Stallings' paper notwithstanding, that combinatorial topology can't work for this conjecture. I don't think that it's especially true that anyone waited to see combinatorial topology methods fail before attempting differential geometry methods. On the contrary, relatively few people tried to burnish Hamilton's program. Many more 3-manifold topologists looked for geometrization results "under the combinatorial street lamp", to use the proverb. Anyway, in general when you work on an open problem, there must be some reason lurking that it's open. Unlike homework or contest problems, open problems survive by natural selection; the well-known ones feel like they already have been picked clean by other people. You should expect Murphy's Law to hold. An example: Until 1998 it was an open problem that the smallest possible single Voronoi region of a sphere packing in 3D is a regular dodecahedron. Even now, the proof by Hales and McLaughlin is quite complicated and I don't know how well it has been checked. (But let me be clear that I do not mean to cast doubt on their work in saying that.) Here is how you might trick yourself and fail to prove this conjecture, in a way that more than one professional mathematician was tricked: (1) Notice, by making examples, that all of the Voronoi regions with 13 or more sides look terrible. (2) Infer that 12 sides is the most competitive case and therefore the hardest case. (3) Find an elegant proof that the smallest 12-sided polyhedron that contains a unit sphere is the regular dodecahedron, whether or not it can be realized as a Voronoi region. (4) Congratulations! You "almost" solved the problem! The fact that you solved the most competitive case, and the fact that the solution is elegant, both give strength to your position. Except that actually, you didn't solve almost the problem. The theorem about 12-sided polyhedra that contain the sphere certainly is elegant, but it was published in 1948 by Laszlo Fejes Toth in a paper that can't easily be Googled. Fejes Toth was not famous the way that Perelman is famous, but he was a good mathematician. If this line of attack were close to a full solution of the Voronoi problem, he probably would have found it. Nor was he the only capable mathematician between 1948 and 1998 to get stuck here. It turns out that even though 12 sides does seem to be the competitive case, it is not the hardest case. The hard cases are messy cases with 13 and 14 sides. The fact that the 12-sided case has an elegant solution is also a red herring. Reply 11 May, 2009 at 8:43 am harrison [] Greg, Of course the very title of Stallings' paper has been parodied and paid homage to multiple times -- although I don't know how many of these are actually a similar type of paper. With a little background in number theory, it's not hard to get the narrative of how Fermat's Last Theorem progressed at least through the nineteenth century -- the n = 4 case is very simple and was proved by Fermat. Euler introduced the idea of considering the equation over an integral extension of Z in his (flawed) proof of the n = 3 case. Germain was the first to separate the conjecture into two cases (based on whether or not n divides abc) and this idea -- along with others introduced by Germain and Euler (such as to consider classes of exponents rather than individual ones) -- dominated the research throughout the 19th and well into the 20th century. The approach to the problem that looked like it was going to work in the mid-19th century was to consider the equation over the ring of integers of the nth cyclotomic field. Kummer pointed out that this ring is not always a unique factorization domain (as had been assumed); although he could extend the method to most primes, it failed for the so-called "irregular primes." That's about the extent of my knowledge on the subject, though; if anyone knows more (or knows I'm wrong), please fill in the details! Reply 11 May, 2009 at 10:32 am Greg Kuperberg [b92] With a little background in number theory, it's not hard to get the narrative of how Fermat's Last Theorem progressed at least through the nineteenth century This sort of larger-than-life example -- and the Poincare conjecture is another one -- is certainly interesting, but it doesn't entirely convey Terry's point about personal fallibility in the face of open problems. If you think that you have solved an open problem, you should keep trying to understand it better for a while, because there is a good chance that you will find a mistake. This is still good advice even if it's a run-of-the-mill open problem, not an incredibly hard open problem like Fermat's Last Theorem. Here is the sort of intuitive fallacy that can come up in a geometry argument: "If I lengthen all three sides of a triangle, its area will go up." It sounds believable, and it even works in a few examples -- but it's not always true for obtuse triangles. Of course if you view this example in isolation, it seems boneheaded. But when working on an open problem, most people have to make intuitive leaps of this sort. If you think that you have a new result, that's a great time to go back and debug your intuition at each step. Terry also makes the more specific point that you should know the difference between climbing the mountain and marching around it. Restating a problem several times, or reducing it to another problem, is actually very good practice. But solving an open problem usually takes more than that. A few problems can be solved that way. Also, a few people have at times brilliantly transformed a broad set of problems by generalizing and restating them -- this was Grothendieck's work philosophy. But a more common outcome is that if you restate a question too many times, eventually you will make it "easier" by restating it erroneously. An example problem that can be solved almost entirely with restatement: Counting problems where the answer is the Catalan numbers, for example the number of lists of 2n balanced parentheses. However, this is only medium-hard as counting problems go, and the restatements have to be somewhat clever to work. An example where restatements are not known to work by themselves: Counting alternating-sign matrices, or ASMs. There are a dozen or so interesting-looking encodings of alternating-sign matrices. You can spend ages rummaging through them in search of a simple counting principle to count ASMs. In fact, restatements of the ASM problem have been important, for instance the description of ASMs in terms of square ice. But even the important restatements do not solve this problem; rather they only give you access to substantive methods such as the Yang-Baxter equation. Reply 11 May, 2009 at 7:01 pm Richard [9a0] I like this comment in the Conclusion of the paper by Stallings cited by Greg above: "The second point is that I was unable to find flaws in my 'proof' for quite a while, even though the error was very obvious. It was a psychological problem, a blindness, an excitement, an inhibition of reasoning by an underlying fear of being wrong. Techniques leading to the abandonment of such inhibitions should be cultivated by every honest mathematician." I recently fell into this trap myself. In the midst of a long paper in progress was a theorem with an assertion that did not seem entirely unreasonable, and I even made a second pass of rewriting in that section and didn't see a problem. But eventually, it made me more and more nervous, and I started digging into some old literature and found a counterexample. I eventually traced the problem to a lemma that was only partly true, and I finally realized "of course that's not true, it's obvious it's not true!" I could attribute the error to the dense complexity of the theory, or reassure myself that I must have written that up late at night in a state of brain fog (which is often the case), but in fact it was the kind of blindness that Stalling's refers to. I was shaken, because other results also depended on that lemma. Fortunately, I was able rewrite the section (again) and recover everything but that particular theorem using different techniques, and after that exercise, I had fresh ideas about how to attack other questions in the next section. Reply 11 May, 2009 at 8:31 pm Greg Kuperberg [b92] It was a psychological problem, a blindness, an excitement, an inhibition of reasoning by an underlying fear of being wrong. Yes, it's the tremendous elation that you've solved a really hard open problem. After you've been through this a few times, it is a thrill that is also nauseating, because you realize that it is your worst enemy. Again, to pick an example, I have been through this with the problem of finding a quantum algorithm for graph isomorphism, among other problems that I never solved. If Gamma is a graph and if you create a quantum superposition which is the sum of |f(Gamma)> for all permutations f of the vertices, then you'd have a quantum algorithm for graph isomorphism. Unfortunately, creating that superposition looks as hard as the original problem. Reply 10 February, 2014 at 8:04 pm Jarod Benowitz [992] You don't need a quantum computer to do it :) Reply 13 May, 2009 at 4:46 pm john mangual [6eb] There a rigorous notion of "conservation of difficulty" in mathematics? Some proofs from "the book" can violate this conservation law. What is compensating for their simplicity and insight? Reply 13 May, 2009 at 7:30 pm Terence Tao [d7f] Dear John, It would be wonderful if there was indeed a rigorous notion of "conservation of difficulty" in mathematics - this would undoubtedly make problems such as P \neq NP much more tractable! Unfortunately, we don't yet have a precise and usable notion of difficulty that is this rigorous. There are various heuristic arguments, on the other hand, that do suggest a lower bound to the amount of effort needed to prove certain theorems. For instance, if a very slight perturbation of the hypotheses of a problem X leads to a modified statement X' which has a subtle counterexample, then this implies that any positive proof of X must be quite delicate; it cannot be so crude or elementary an argument that it cannot distinguish between the true statement X and the false statement X'. For instance, if a statement is known to be true for the reals {\Bbb R} but false for the algebraic reals \ overline{\Bbb Q} \cap {\Bbb R}, then one cannot hope to prove or disprove either statement by elementary algebra, since such tools cannot distinguish between the two fields; it is likely that one will need analytic tools, such as limits and integrals, instead. Another measure of difficulty of a problem can come from lower bounds on the quantitative dependencies of the constants associated to the problem. For instance, it is known that the number of cells needed to regularise a graph to accuracy \varepsilon grows tower-exponentially fast in 1/\varepsilon. This already rules out a number of overly simple approaches to proving the graph regularity lemma, since many such approaches would necessarily give polynomial or exponential bounds rather than tower-exponential ones. A third way to gauge difficulty is to see how many independent applications the result would have. If a result X would easily imply as corollaries three very different-looking results A, B, and C, each of which is non-trivial in its own right (and are proven by completely different methods), then this makes it less likely that there is going to be a quick proof of X, as this would mean that there would be a "one-size-fits-all" proof of A, B, and C. (Instead, what normally happens is that the proof of X will be some amalgam of the proofs used for A, B, and C.) Of course, not all of the perceived difficulty of a problem is genuinely present, and by cleverly reformulating the problem (or by choosing good notation) one can sometimes get rid of artificial obstacles to proving a result: many examples of "proofs from the book" are of this form, boiling down the difficulties to the bare essentials. But many results, particularly the deeper facts which touch upon particularly subtle, delicate, and broad mathematical phenomena, do seem to have a certain irreducible amount of difficulty to them, even after reformulating away all non-essential obstructions. In some cases, though, this difficulty can be absorbed into some larger theoretical framework which takes some effort to set up, but then can be used easily and efficiently for many further applications. (The construction of the Lebesgue measure and Lebesgue integral is a typical such example; remarkably tedious to set up initially, but extremely useful once in place.) Reply 14 May, 2009 at 8:29 am Anonymous [] Prof. Tao, Thanks for the above remarks on difficulty . They are great! Reply 3 April, 2010 at 5:27 am Terence Tao on Research << Mathematics Expressions [...] Tao on Research By colinwytan Terence Tao gave an illustration on the process of research in his blog. I realize that I need to try my categorial approach on the know examples of the [...] Reply 24 April, 2010 at 5:29 am Anonymous [] Would it be fair to say that for difficult problems, an effective approach would have to involve lots of concrete examples and their specific details, and only then generalizing and abstracting from these concrete examples? Are approaches which always remain abstract, general and universal far less likely to be effective? Reply 24 April, 2010 at 5:31 am Anonymous [] This reminds me, one common method of solving math problems, which also happens to be looked down upon a lot, is a case by case analysis. Another is trial and error. Reply 24 December, 2011 at 9:23 pm Warren [226] Step 10: searching the literature. This is a VERY big difficulty when one is unemployed and has no formal association with any university or corporation. Moreover, how does one search for a particular identity one might need? How does one enter a mathematical formula into a search engine to see if there exist any counterexamples or proofs of this desired formula? I am dying for library access to mathematical literature! Contacting paid mathematicians is not sufficient. Often, they do not know the answer and, rightfully so, are not going to do literature searches for me for free. Reply 21 May, 2013 at 3:44 am Bisogna essere un genio per fare matematica? - Maddmaths [...] a diventare troppo ossessionate con i "grandi problemi" e le "grandi teorie", altri a perdere quel sano scetticismo nel proprio lavoro o nei loro strumenti, e altri ancora a diventare troppo scoraggiati per continuare a fare [...] Reply 27 January, 2015 at 4:25 pm Alex [] What about coordinate changes? Algebraic/geometric machinery seem to find the right coordinate changes that reduce the problems to a simpler computation. Although I agree with you; what you said amounts to saying finding the right coordinate change or at least knowing the existence of a simplifying coordinate change can be very hard, but there are many instances where people seem to straight away stumble upon the right sequence of computations to get the simplifications.. Reply 18 May, 2015 at 2:25 pm Steve Witham [246] "Read over your compositions, and wherever you meet with a passage which you think is particularly fine, strike it out." -Samuel Johnson, quoted by Boswell Reply 2 October, 2015 at 3:24 pm Right To Learn, Part 2 | Minds on Fire [...] overly obsessed with "big problems" or "big theories", others to lose any healthy scepticism in their own work or in their tools, and yet others still to become too discouraged to continue working in [...] Reply 7 January, 2017 at 6:36 am Be sceptical of your own work [...] An expert is a man who has made all the mistakes, which can be made, in a very narrow field. (Niels Bohr) If you unexpectedly find a problem solving itself almost effortlessly, and you can't quite ... - Hacker News [...] Reply 11 October, 2020 at 6:16 am Does one have to be a genius to do maths? - By Terence Tao - A2M1N [...] some to become overly obsessed with "big problems" or "big theories", others to lose any healthy scepticism in their own work or in their tools, and yet others still to become too discouraged to continue working in [...] Reply 16 August, 2023 at 9:20 am Zi Fen noShi Shi niHuai Yi De ninaru(2009Nian ) - Shi Jie noHua Ti woRi Ben Yu dezatsukuriSu Zao kuQue Ren ! [cro] [...] konoJi Shi haHackerNewsniJie Zai saretaXia Ji noJi Shi oyobisoreniDui suru HackerNewsShang nokomentowoYuan niZuo Cheng sareteimasu. Be sceptical of your own work (2009) [...] Reply Leave a Reply Cancel reply Enter your comment here... [ ] Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: * * * Gravatar Email (Address never made public) [ ] Name [ ] Website [ ] WordPress.com Logo You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. ( Log Out / Change ) Facebook photo You are commenting using your Facebook account. ( Log Out / Change ) Cancel Connecting to %s [ ] Notify me of new comments via email. [ ] Notify me of new posts via email. [Post Comment] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] D[ ] For commenters To enter in LaTeX in comments, use $latex $ (without the < and > signs, of course; in fact, these signs should be avoided as they can cause formatting errors). See the about page for details and for other commenting policy. Blog at WordPress.com.Ben Eastaugh and Chris Sternal-Johnson. Subscribe to feed. * Follow Following + [bd4bda] What's new Join 10,970 other followers [ ] Sign me up + Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now. * + [bd4bda] What's new + Customize + Follow Following + Sign up + Log in + Copy shortlink + Report this content + View post in Reader + Manage subscriptions + Collapse this bar %d bloggers like this: [b]