Take the 2-minute tour ×
Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Looking through the webcomic, I came across one of my favorite comics:

enter image description here

(from Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal)

It seems that people have an ongoing interest in results in mathematics that are true, but highly unintuitive, like the Banach-Tarski Paradox. However, what results are there that are seemingly obvious and intuitive, but difficult to prove (or perhaps have non-obvious intricacies)?

I feel that such examples are important for helping people understand the necessity of rigor or that seemingly obvious results are not at all obvious from a mathematical perspective.

(Personally, I don't feel that 'simple' number theory conjectures/results like the ABC conjecture fall under this category, because while simple to state, they are often very removed from reality.)

share|improve this question
    
I don't know that I'd call the ABC conjecture simple to state (at least compared to, say, FLT.) –  Mike Miller Mar 29 at 1:31
1  
Relating to the statement in the comic more than your question: Obvious facts are generally easier to prove. However, when one is first learning mathematics, one generally does not develop the necessary machinery to prove anything from axioms, so proofs are done by reducing complex statements to the more obvious ones. In the case of already obvious statements there is no point to this, so the necessary machinery must be developed and used for there to be anything to do. However, this is still easier than proving more complex statements from equally basic principles. –  Alex Becker Mar 29 at 1:33
    
Agreed, but I wanted to reference an open question, though there are obviously other simpler to state open questions out there. –  Hayden Mar 29 at 1:33
add comment

2 Answers 2

up vote 5 down vote accepted

The Jordan curve theorem asserts that every a non-self-intersecting continuous loop divides the plane into an "interior" region bounded by the curve and an "exterior" region.

Another nice example is the P vs NP problem, which basically says verifying is easier than finding solutions. But it is still unsolved , one of the Clay Millennium problems.

share|improve this answer
add comment

Prove the reflexive property, or that $x = x$.

http://www.tondering.dk/claus/sur16.pdf

Crazy stuff.

share|improve this answer
    
This is misleading, because if you're asking for a formal proof you need to give a formal statement; and a formal statement of "$x=x$ where $x$ is a surreal number" is definitely not simple, –  Alex Becker Mar 29 at 1:35
    
Yes. A more obvious fact, according to the expert graph, has a more difficult proof. –  louie mcconnell Mar 29 at 1:35
    
I'm not sure what your comment means. Can you clarify? –  Alex Becker Mar 29 at 2:14
    
The xkcd comic is implying that a very simple axiom can be very difficult to prove. This is one of the simplest axioms imaginable, with an extremely difficult proof. –  louie mcconnell Mar 29 at 2:40
add comment

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.