## What are some correct results discovered with incorrect (or no) proofs?

### Remember to vote up questions/answers you find interesting or helpful (requires 15 reputation points)

Many famous results were discovered through non-rigorous proofs, with correct proofs being found only later and with greater difficulty. One that is well known is Euler's 1737 proof that

$1+\frac{1}{2^2}+\frac{1}{3^2}+\frac{1}{4^2}+\cdots =\frac{\pi^2}{6}$

in which he pretends that the power series for $\frac{\sin\sqrt{x}}{\sqrt{x}}$ is an infinite polynomial and factorizes it from knowledge of its roots.

Another example, of a different type, is the Jordan curve theorem. In this case, the theorem seems obvious, and Jordan gets credit for realizing that it requires proof. However, the proof was harder than he thought, and the first rigorous proof was found some decades later than Jordan's attempt. Many of the basic theorems of topology are like this.

Then of course there is Ramanujan, who is in a class of his own when it comes to discovering theorems without proving them.

I'd be interested to see other examples, and in your thoughts on what the examples reveal about the connection between discovery and proof.

Clarification. When I posed the question I was hoping for some explanations for the gap between discovery and proof to emerge, without any hinting from me. Since this hasn't happened much yet, let me suggest some possible explanations that I had in mind:

Physical intuition. This lies behind results such as the Jordan curve theorem, Riemann mapping theorem, Fourier analysis.

Lack of foundations. This accounts for the late arrival of rigor in calculus, topology, and (?) algebraic geometry.

Complexity. Hard results cannot proved correctly the first time, only via a series of partially correct, or incomplete, proofs. Example: Fermat's last theorem.

I hope this gives a better idea of what I was looking for. Feel free to edit your answers if you have anything to add.

-

5
I was thinking also of stuff like Witten. – Steve Huntsman Jun 11 2010 at 1:01

10
In Tom Hales account of Jordan's proof, he states that there is essentially no problem with Jordan's original proof, and that claims to the contrary are themselves wrong or based on misunderstandings. As far as I can tell, he is correct, and there is no reason to impugn Jordan's original proof. (See "Jordan's proof of the Jordan curve theorem" at math.pitt.edu/~thales/papers ) – Emerton Jun 11 2010 at 2:49

1
@Emerton. I stand corrected. Maybe Jordan's proof should be in the same category as Heegner's: thought to be incorrect, but essentially correct when properly understood. – John Stillwell Jun 11 2010 at 3:09

10
A further remark: I think that is important to distinguish between polishing an argument, or perhaps interpreting it in terms of contemporary language and formalism, which will almost always be required when reading arguments (especially subtle ones) from 100 or more years ago, and genuinely incomplete arguments. As an example of the latter, one can think of Riemann's arguments with the Dirichlet principle, where this result was simply taken as an axiom. Additional work was genuinely required to validate the Dirichlet principle, and thus complete Riemann's arguments. – Emerton Jun 11 2010 at 5:59

3
I would argue that (although it came after the drive for rigor had already started thanks to Cantor, Weierstrass, et al.) the dawn of modern statistical and quantum physics had a great deal to do with the consolidation of rigor throughout mathematics. Indeed, ergodic theory and functional analysis owe a great deal to these disciplines, and neither could have existed in the time of (say) Euler because the approach to mathematics was different. – Steve Huntsman Jun 11 2010 at 12:32
show 8 more comments

## 35 Answers

Renormalizations in QFT

Renormalizations as discarding perturbative corrections to masses and charges were not easily accepted, even by their inventors, because of being obviously anti-mathematic. It remains to be a prescription, lucky in some rare cases and wrong in the others.

In Physics we use a perturbation theory where the perturbation is supposed to be small but it is "big" in QFT. First we write down a non perturbed Hamiltonian, let's say:

$\hat H_0 = -\frac{\hbar^2}{2m_e}\frac{d^2}{dx^2} + \hat{V}_0 (x)$ (1)

Everything in it is quite physical including the electron mass. Then we "develop" our theory and include, as we think, a small interaction that has also a kinetic and a potential term:

$\hat H_{int} = -\epsilon\frac{d^2}{dx^2} + \hat{V}_1 (x)$ (2)

The kinetic term shifts the particle mass, it is obvious. But our mass is already good in (1) and any its shifting worsens agreement with experiment. Discarding this correction "restores" the right kinetic part of the Hamiltonian, and taking $\hat{V}_1$ into account improves agreement with experiment. So the discarding practice became a part of QFT calculations.

Appearance of a kinetic perturbative term is due to our misunderstanding interactions. Some part of interactions cannot be treated perturbatively but should be present in the zeroth-order approximation. Discarding is a very bad practice. For (2) it may luckily work, but for other our guesses of interactions it can be more complicated and be just "non renormalizable".

Although shown on a simplest example, the renormalizations in QFT have nothing else in their meaning but repairing a wrongly guessed Hamiltonian via repairing the corresponding solutions. Normally it is difficult to see explicitly that some part of guessed interaction, namely a "self-action" term, is of a kinetic nature. That is why presently they "explain" renormalizations differently.

A correct theory development should not include kinetic perturbative terms. Then the perturbative series will be reasonable, in my opinion.

-

### You can accept an answer to one of your own questions by clicking the check mark next to it. This awards 15 reputation points to the person who answered and 2 reputation points to you.

Results in complexity theory such as $P \neq NP$.

Philosophically, it makes sense that there is a difference between verification and search, and no-one has discovered a counterexample.

(Note, that this result is not strictly speaking known to be correct. However, it is believed to be correct and routinely used as if it were simply true. No one, as far as I can tell, would ever begin a proof in complexity theory by assuming $P = NP$. )

-

Collatz Conjecture

The 3x+1 problem and its generalizations

The 3x+1 problem, also known as the Collatz problem, the Syracuse problem, Kakutani's problem, Hasse's algorithm, and Ulam's problem, concerns the behavior of the iterates of the function which takes odd integers n to 3n+1 and even integers n to n/2. The 3x+1 Conjecture asserts that, starting from any positive integer n, repeated iteration of this function eventually produces the value 1.

The 3x+1 Conjecture is simple to state and apparently intractably hard to solve. It shares these properties with other iteration problems, for example that of aliquot sequences and with celebrated Diophantine equations such as Fermat's last theorem. Paul Erdos commented concerning the intractability of the 3x+1 problem: "Mathematics is not yet ready for such problems." Despite this doleful pronouncement, study of the 3x+1 problem has not been without reward. It has interesting connections with the Diophantine approximation of the binary logarithm of 3 and the distribution mod 1 of the sequence {(3/2)^k : k = 1, 2, ...}, with questions of ergodic theory on the 2-adic integers, and with computability theory - a generalization of the 3x+1 problem has been shown to be a computationally unsolvable problem. In this paper I describe the history of the 3x+1 problem and survey all the literature I am aware of about this problem and its generalizations.

-

3
According to the title, these should be "correct results". Probably conjectures not yet proved (and refereed) should not be included in the list. – Gerald Edgar Aug 27 2011 at 17:37
-
-
{"extraction_info": {"found_math": true, "script_math_tex": 0, "script_math_asciimath": 0, "math_annotations": 0, "math_alttext": 0, "mathml": 0, "mathjax_tag": 0, "mathjax_inline_tex": 7, "mathjax_display_tex": 0, "mathjax_asciimath": 0, "img_math": 0, "codecogs_latex": 0, "wp_latex": 0, "mimetex.cgi": 0, "/images/math/codecogs": 0, "mathtex.cgi": 0}, "config": {"markdown_headings": true, "markdown_code": true, "boilerplate_config": {"ratio_threshold": 0.18, "absolute_threshold": 20, "end_threshold": 15, "enable": true}, "remove_buttons": true, "remove_image_figures": true, "remove_link_clusters": true, "table_config": {"min_rows": 2, "min_cols": 3, "format": "plain"}, "remove_chinese": true, "remove_edit_buttons": true, "extract_latex": true}, "english_confidence": 0.9567366242408752, "perplexity_flag": "middle"}