Looking for a conceptual proof of the pythagorean theorem from first principles The 2019 Stack Overflow Developer Survey Results Are In Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara Planned maintenance scheduled April 17/18, 2019 at 00:00UTC (8:00pm US/Eastern)Pythagorean Theorem Proof Without Words (request for words)How do mathematicians think about high dimensional geometry?The paralelogram law and the polarisation identityNon-geometric Proof of Pythagorean TheoremWhy does the Pythagorean Theorem not work on this problem in the way that I used it?Prove to me with Hilbert's Axioms that rotations preserve angles and distance in $mathbbR^2$?Why are the two dot product definitions equal?Can we speak of angles when our inner product isn't standard?Proving 3D vector distance between point and lineIs the proof of Pythagorean theorem using dot (inner) product circular?

How did passengers keep warm on sail ships?

Did God make two great lights or did He make the great light two?

Mortgage adviser recommends a longer term than necessary combined with overpayments

What do you call a plan that's an alternative plan in case your initial plan fails?

Does Parliament hold absolute power in the UK?

Segmentation fault output is suppressed when piping stdin into a function. Why?

Why can't devices on different VLANs, but on the same subnet, communicate?

Working through the single responsibility principle (SRP) in Python when calls are expensive

Who or what is the being for whom Being is a question for Heidegger?

How do you keep chess fun when your opponent constantly beats you?

Difference between "generating set" and free product?

Was credit for the black hole image misattributed?

Single author papers against my advisor's will?

Match Roman Numerals

Typeface like Times New Roman but with "tied" percent sign

How to delete random line from file using Unix command?

The variadic template constructor of my class cannot modify my class members, why is that so?

Did the UK government pay "millions and millions of dollars" to try to snag Julian Assange?

ELI5: Why do they say that Israel would have been the fourth country to land a spacecraft on the Moon and why do they call it low cost?

Semisimplicity of the category of coherent sheaves?

Can smartphones with the same camera sensor have different image quality?

How is simplicity better than precision and clarity in prose?

Create an outline of font

Can a 1st-level character have an ability score above 18?



Looking for a conceptual proof of the pythagorean theorem from first principles



The 2019 Stack Overflow Developer Survey Results Are In
Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara
Planned maintenance scheduled April 17/18, 2019 at 00:00UTC (8:00pm US/Eastern)Pythagorean Theorem Proof Without Words (request for words)How do mathematicians think about high dimensional geometry?The paralelogram law and the polarisation identityNon-geometric Proof of Pythagorean TheoremWhy does the Pythagorean Theorem not work on this problem in the way that I used it?Prove to me with Hilbert's Axioms that rotations preserve angles and distance in $mathbbR^2$?Why are the two dot product definitions equal?Can we speak of angles when our inner product isn't standard?Proving 3D vector distance between point and lineIs the proof of Pythagorean theorem using dot (inner) product circular?










1












$begingroup$


I was considering asking this question on math stack exchange but decided not to because "first principles" seems like more of a physics thing.



I'm looking for a conceptual proof of the pythagorean theorem from first principles. Actually, it might be better to say the distance formula rather than the pythagorean theorem because I'm thinking about distances in three dimensions.



I don't find any of the usual proofs of the distance formula satisfying. There are a number of proofs from first principles in euclidean geometry but then I feel like I have to move triangles and squares around or break out proportions every time I use the distance formula. On the other hand there are a lot of conceptual proofs of the pythagorean theorem, e.g. using the dot product or the law of cosines, but each of these just pushes the question around. If I use the dot product to "prove" the pythagorean theorem I need to know why we use the dot product from first principles. If I use the law of cosines then I need to know why vectors that are $90^circ$ to each other are perpendicular. I'm sure this sounds perverse so let me try to make what I'm looking for a bit more precise.



For me "understanding" a thing is always understanding it within a particular conceptual system. Within that system we have admissible intuitions and understanding is when those intuitions are matched with rigorous math. Those intuitions could be of the formal relations between various quantities and how we interpret that physically. So there are all these different ways to understand this stuff, but what I'm lacking is a way to understand them simultaneously. (--ok, I really tried here, and I know it is super confused but its not getting any better than this)



The distance formula is such an elementary and fundamental fact about our everyday experience that I feel like there must be some better way to understand it than "we can prove it and its mutually compatible with other concepts like inner products and angles and the math that relates them".



I've been wondering about this on and off ever since I learned about the dot product proof of the pythagorean theorem. At first I was more wondering why the the dot product lets us compute angles via $u cdot v = |u| |v| cos(theta)$, and this still seems extraordinary to me, so I would want a way to understand the relation between inner products and angles from first principles too.



Right now my thinking is that from first principles (whatever first principles is) distance is a thing, rigid motions is a thing, distance is preserved by rigid motions, rigid motions includes translations, rotations, and reflections, so distance is translation invariant and respects scaling, so distance comes from a norm, then because the parallelogram law is so obviously true (not obvious to me at all), this norm comes from an inner product given by the polarization identity.



If I could understand why the parallelogram law is true from first principles then by the rest of the above I would have one of these nice conceptual systems from first principles through inner products, and that would include the pythagorean theorem.



But understanding why the parallelogram law is true seems at least as hard as the pythagorean theorem itself, since its essentially a more general form, so I'm going to settle with understanding how it can fail. I see two avenues for this. First there are various examples of norms where the parallelogram fails to hold, for example all of the $L^p$ spaces. Second, the pythagorean theorem, and presumably the parallelogram law, fail to hold in geometries with nonzero curvature.



I think this clarifies what I mean by "conceptual proof of the pythagorean theorem from first principles" so I think its reasonable to ask for approaches found in textbooks or expository papers to the pythagorean theorem / inner products / angles following a similar outline to what I gave above.










share|cite|improve this question









$endgroup$



migrated from physics.stackexchange.com Mar 25 at 7:41


This question came from our site for active researchers, academics and students of physics.

















  • $begingroup$
    As a side question, could anybody explain what am I trying to say in my fourth paragraph? Its seems like other people would have written about it. And I could try to haphazardly explain it in the comments more.
    $endgroup$
    – Robin Allison
    Mar 25 at 0:14






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    The Pythagorean Theorem is a mathematical concept, so the first principles proof you're looking proof will necessarily come from mathematical axioms. However, if what you want is a more physical interpretation, this video could help you: youtube.com/watch?v=CAkMUdeB06o
    $endgroup$
    – Charlie
    Mar 25 at 0:16






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    This doesn’t seem like a good question for Physics SE given that we know that physical space isn’t Euclidean.
    $endgroup$
    – G. Smith
    Mar 25 at 0:25










  • $begingroup$
    Without you telling us what you would accept as first principles it will likely not be possible for anyone to give you an acceptable answer. You are clearly already aware of several proofs, but don’t like their “givens”. So you will need to identify what you are willing to accept as given.
    $endgroup$
    – Dale
    Mar 25 at 1:25






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Math.SE could still work, and this question would be better suited for there, as it's purely about theoretical mathematics. "First principles" in mathematics do exist. They're called "axioms". That said, there is freedom in this case in what you will choose as your axioms - there are many equivalent sets that will describe the same thing, i.e. Euclidean plane geometry. The nature of the proof will then depend on which axiom set you choose to use.
    $endgroup$
    – The_Sympathizer
    Mar 25 at 6:42















1












$begingroup$


I was considering asking this question on math stack exchange but decided not to because "first principles" seems like more of a physics thing.



I'm looking for a conceptual proof of the pythagorean theorem from first principles. Actually, it might be better to say the distance formula rather than the pythagorean theorem because I'm thinking about distances in three dimensions.



I don't find any of the usual proofs of the distance formula satisfying. There are a number of proofs from first principles in euclidean geometry but then I feel like I have to move triangles and squares around or break out proportions every time I use the distance formula. On the other hand there are a lot of conceptual proofs of the pythagorean theorem, e.g. using the dot product or the law of cosines, but each of these just pushes the question around. If I use the dot product to "prove" the pythagorean theorem I need to know why we use the dot product from first principles. If I use the law of cosines then I need to know why vectors that are $90^circ$ to each other are perpendicular. I'm sure this sounds perverse so let me try to make what I'm looking for a bit more precise.



For me "understanding" a thing is always understanding it within a particular conceptual system. Within that system we have admissible intuitions and understanding is when those intuitions are matched with rigorous math. Those intuitions could be of the formal relations between various quantities and how we interpret that physically. So there are all these different ways to understand this stuff, but what I'm lacking is a way to understand them simultaneously. (--ok, I really tried here, and I know it is super confused but its not getting any better than this)



The distance formula is such an elementary and fundamental fact about our everyday experience that I feel like there must be some better way to understand it than "we can prove it and its mutually compatible with other concepts like inner products and angles and the math that relates them".



I've been wondering about this on and off ever since I learned about the dot product proof of the pythagorean theorem. At first I was more wondering why the the dot product lets us compute angles via $u cdot v = |u| |v| cos(theta)$, and this still seems extraordinary to me, so I would want a way to understand the relation between inner products and angles from first principles too.



Right now my thinking is that from first principles (whatever first principles is) distance is a thing, rigid motions is a thing, distance is preserved by rigid motions, rigid motions includes translations, rotations, and reflections, so distance is translation invariant and respects scaling, so distance comes from a norm, then because the parallelogram law is so obviously true (not obvious to me at all), this norm comes from an inner product given by the polarization identity.



If I could understand why the parallelogram law is true from first principles then by the rest of the above I would have one of these nice conceptual systems from first principles through inner products, and that would include the pythagorean theorem.



But understanding why the parallelogram law is true seems at least as hard as the pythagorean theorem itself, since its essentially a more general form, so I'm going to settle with understanding how it can fail. I see two avenues for this. First there are various examples of norms where the parallelogram fails to hold, for example all of the $L^p$ spaces. Second, the pythagorean theorem, and presumably the parallelogram law, fail to hold in geometries with nonzero curvature.



I think this clarifies what I mean by "conceptual proof of the pythagorean theorem from first principles" so I think its reasonable to ask for approaches found in textbooks or expository papers to the pythagorean theorem / inner products / angles following a similar outline to what I gave above.










share|cite|improve this question









$endgroup$



migrated from physics.stackexchange.com Mar 25 at 7:41


This question came from our site for active researchers, academics and students of physics.

















  • $begingroup$
    As a side question, could anybody explain what am I trying to say in my fourth paragraph? Its seems like other people would have written about it. And I could try to haphazardly explain it in the comments more.
    $endgroup$
    – Robin Allison
    Mar 25 at 0:14






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    The Pythagorean Theorem is a mathematical concept, so the first principles proof you're looking proof will necessarily come from mathematical axioms. However, if what you want is a more physical interpretation, this video could help you: youtube.com/watch?v=CAkMUdeB06o
    $endgroup$
    – Charlie
    Mar 25 at 0:16






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    This doesn’t seem like a good question for Physics SE given that we know that physical space isn’t Euclidean.
    $endgroup$
    – G. Smith
    Mar 25 at 0:25










  • $begingroup$
    Without you telling us what you would accept as first principles it will likely not be possible for anyone to give you an acceptable answer. You are clearly already aware of several proofs, but don’t like their “givens”. So you will need to identify what you are willing to accept as given.
    $endgroup$
    – Dale
    Mar 25 at 1:25






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Math.SE could still work, and this question would be better suited for there, as it's purely about theoretical mathematics. "First principles" in mathematics do exist. They're called "axioms". That said, there is freedom in this case in what you will choose as your axioms - there are many equivalent sets that will describe the same thing, i.e. Euclidean plane geometry. The nature of the proof will then depend on which axiom set you choose to use.
    $endgroup$
    – The_Sympathizer
    Mar 25 at 6:42













1












1








1





$begingroup$


I was considering asking this question on math stack exchange but decided not to because "first principles" seems like more of a physics thing.



I'm looking for a conceptual proof of the pythagorean theorem from first principles. Actually, it might be better to say the distance formula rather than the pythagorean theorem because I'm thinking about distances in three dimensions.



I don't find any of the usual proofs of the distance formula satisfying. There are a number of proofs from first principles in euclidean geometry but then I feel like I have to move triangles and squares around or break out proportions every time I use the distance formula. On the other hand there are a lot of conceptual proofs of the pythagorean theorem, e.g. using the dot product or the law of cosines, but each of these just pushes the question around. If I use the dot product to "prove" the pythagorean theorem I need to know why we use the dot product from first principles. If I use the law of cosines then I need to know why vectors that are $90^circ$ to each other are perpendicular. I'm sure this sounds perverse so let me try to make what I'm looking for a bit more precise.



For me "understanding" a thing is always understanding it within a particular conceptual system. Within that system we have admissible intuitions and understanding is when those intuitions are matched with rigorous math. Those intuitions could be of the formal relations between various quantities and how we interpret that physically. So there are all these different ways to understand this stuff, but what I'm lacking is a way to understand them simultaneously. (--ok, I really tried here, and I know it is super confused but its not getting any better than this)



The distance formula is such an elementary and fundamental fact about our everyday experience that I feel like there must be some better way to understand it than "we can prove it and its mutually compatible with other concepts like inner products and angles and the math that relates them".



I've been wondering about this on and off ever since I learned about the dot product proof of the pythagorean theorem. At first I was more wondering why the the dot product lets us compute angles via $u cdot v = |u| |v| cos(theta)$, and this still seems extraordinary to me, so I would want a way to understand the relation between inner products and angles from first principles too.



Right now my thinking is that from first principles (whatever first principles is) distance is a thing, rigid motions is a thing, distance is preserved by rigid motions, rigid motions includes translations, rotations, and reflections, so distance is translation invariant and respects scaling, so distance comes from a norm, then because the parallelogram law is so obviously true (not obvious to me at all), this norm comes from an inner product given by the polarization identity.



If I could understand why the parallelogram law is true from first principles then by the rest of the above I would have one of these nice conceptual systems from first principles through inner products, and that would include the pythagorean theorem.



But understanding why the parallelogram law is true seems at least as hard as the pythagorean theorem itself, since its essentially a more general form, so I'm going to settle with understanding how it can fail. I see two avenues for this. First there are various examples of norms where the parallelogram fails to hold, for example all of the $L^p$ spaces. Second, the pythagorean theorem, and presumably the parallelogram law, fail to hold in geometries with nonzero curvature.



I think this clarifies what I mean by "conceptual proof of the pythagorean theorem from first principles" so I think its reasonable to ask for approaches found in textbooks or expository papers to the pythagorean theorem / inner products / angles following a similar outline to what I gave above.










share|cite|improve this question









$endgroup$




I was considering asking this question on math stack exchange but decided not to because "first principles" seems like more of a physics thing.



I'm looking for a conceptual proof of the pythagorean theorem from first principles. Actually, it might be better to say the distance formula rather than the pythagorean theorem because I'm thinking about distances in three dimensions.



I don't find any of the usual proofs of the distance formula satisfying. There are a number of proofs from first principles in euclidean geometry but then I feel like I have to move triangles and squares around or break out proportions every time I use the distance formula. On the other hand there are a lot of conceptual proofs of the pythagorean theorem, e.g. using the dot product or the law of cosines, but each of these just pushes the question around. If I use the dot product to "prove" the pythagorean theorem I need to know why we use the dot product from first principles. If I use the law of cosines then I need to know why vectors that are $90^circ$ to each other are perpendicular. I'm sure this sounds perverse so let me try to make what I'm looking for a bit more precise.



For me "understanding" a thing is always understanding it within a particular conceptual system. Within that system we have admissible intuitions and understanding is when those intuitions are matched with rigorous math. Those intuitions could be of the formal relations between various quantities and how we interpret that physically. So there are all these different ways to understand this stuff, but what I'm lacking is a way to understand them simultaneously. (--ok, I really tried here, and I know it is super confused but its not getting any better than this)



The distance formula is such an elementary and fundamental fact about our everyday experience that I feel like there must be some better way to understand it than "we can prove it and its mutually compatible with other concepts like inner products and angles and the math that relates them".



I've been wondering about this on and off ever since I learned about the dot product proof of the pythagorean theorem. At first I was more wondering why the the dot product lets us compute angles via $u cdot v = |u| |v| cos(theta)$, and this still seems extraordinary to me, so I would want a way to understand the relation between inner products and angles from first principles too.



Right now my thinking is that from first principles (whatever first principles is) distance is a thing, rigid motions is a thing, distance is preserved by rigid motions, rigid motions includes translations, rotations, and reflections, so distance is translation invariant and respects scaling, so distance comes from a norm, then because the parallelogram law is so obviously true (not obvious to me at all), this norm comes from an inner product given by the polarization identity.



If I could understand why the parallelogram law is true from first principles then by the rest of the above I would have one of these nice conceptual systems from first principles through inner products, and that would include the pythagorean theorem.



But understanding why the parallelogram law is true seems at least as hard as the pythagorean theorem itself, since its essentially a more general form, so I'm going to settle with understanding how it can fail. I see two avenues for this. First there are various examples of norms where the parallelogram fails to hold, for example all of the $L^p$ spaces. Second, the pythagorean theorem, and presumably the parallelogram law, fail to hold in geometries with nonzero curvature.



I think this clarifies what I mean by "conceptual proof of the pythagorean theorem from first principles" so I think its reasonable to ask for approaches found in textbooks or expository papers to the pythagorean theorem / inner products / angles following a similar outline to what I gave above.







education geometry






share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question











share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question










asked Mar 25 at 0:12









Robin AllisonRobin Allison

329113




329113




migrated from physics.stackexchange.com Mar 25 at 7:41


This question came from our site for active researchers, academics and students of physics.









migrated from physics.stackexchange.com Mar 25 at 7:41


This question came from our site for active researchers, academics and students of physics.













  • $begingroup$
    As a side question, could anybody explain what am I trying to say in my fourth paragraph? Its seems like other people would have written about it. And I could try to haphazardly explain it in the comments more.
    $endgroup$
    – Robin Allison
    Mar 25 at 0:14






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    The Pythagorean Theorem is a mathematical concept, so the first principles proof you're looking proof will necessarily come from mathematical axioms. However, if what you want is a more physical interpretation, this video could help you: youtube.com/watch?v=CAkMUdeB06o
    $endgroup$
    – Charlie
    Mar 25 at 0:16






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    This doesn’t seem like a good question for Physics SE given that we know that physical space isn’t Euclidean.
    $endgroup$
    – G. Smith
    Mar 25 at 0:25










  • $begingroup$
    Without you telling us what you would accept as first principles it will likely not be possible for anyone to give you an acceptable answer. You are clearly already aware of several proofs, but don’t like their “givens”. So you will need to identify what you are willing to accept as given.
    $endgroup$
    – Dale
    Mar 25 at 1:25






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Math.SE could still work, and this question would be better suited for there, as it's purely about theoretical mathematics. "First principles" in mathematics do exist. They're called "axioms". That said, there is freedom in this case in what you will choose as your axioms - there are many equivalent sets that will describe the same thing, i.e. Euclidean plane geometry. The nature of the proof will then depend on which axiom set you choose to use.
    $endgroup$
    – The_Sympathizer
    Mar 25 at 6:42
















  • $begingroup$
    As a side question, could anybody explain what am I trying to say in my fourth paragraph? Its seems like other people would have written about it. And I could try to haphazardly explain it in the comments more.
    $endgroup$
    – Robin Allison
    Mar 25 at 0:14






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    The Pythagorean Theorem is a mathematical concept, so the first principles proof you're looking proof will necessarily come from mathematical axioms. However, if what you want is a more physical interpretation, this video could help you: youtube.com/watch?v=CAkMUdeB06o
    $endgroup$
    – Charlie
    Mar 25 at 0:16






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    This doesn’t seem like a good question for Physics SE given that we know that physical space isn’t Euclidean.
    $endgroup$
    – G. Smith
    Mar 25 at 0:25










  • $begingroup$
    Without you telling us what you would accept as first principles it will likely not be possible for anyone to give you an acceptable answer. You are clearly already aware of several proofs, but don’t like their “givens”. So you will need to identify what you are willing to accept as given.
    $endgroup$
    – Dale
    Mar 25 at 1:25






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Math.SE could still work, and this question would be better suited for there, as it's purely about theoretical mathematics. "First principles" in mathematics do exist. They're called "axioms". That said, there is freedom in this case in what you will choose as your axioms - there are many equivalent sets that will describe the same thing, i.e. Euclidean plane geometry. The nature of the proof will then depend on which axiom set you choose to use.
    $endgroup$
    – The_Sympathizer
    Mar 25 at 6:42















$begingroup$
As a side question, could anybody explain what am I trying to say in my fourth paragraph? Its seems like other people would have written about it. And I could try to haphazardly explain it in the comments more.
$endgroup$
– Robin Allison
Mar 25 at 0:14




$begingroup$
As a side question, could anybody explain what am I trying to say in my fourth paragraph? Its seems like other people would have written about it. And I could try to haphazardly explain it in the comments more.
$endgroup$
– Robin Allison
Mar 25 at 0:14




1




1




$begingroup$
The Pythagorean Theorem is a mathematical concept, so the first principles proof you're looking proof will necessarily come from mathematical axioms. However, if what you want is a more physical interpretation, this video could help you: youtube.com/watch?v=CAkMUdeB06o
$endgroup$
– Charlie
Mar 25 at 0:16




$begingroup$
The Pythagorean Theorem is a mathematical concept, so the first principles proof you're looking proof will necessarily come from mathematical axioms. However, if what you want is a more physical interpretation, this video could help you: youtube.com/watch?v=CAkMUdeB06o
$endgroup$
– Charlie
Mar 25 at 0:16




1




1




$begingroup$
This doesn’t seem like a good question for Physics SE given that we know that physical space isn’t Euclidean.
$endgroup$
– G. Smith
Mar 25 at 0:25




$begingroup$
This doesn’t seem like a good question for Physics SE given that we know that physical space isn’t Euclidean.
$endgroup$
– G. Smith
Mar 25 at 0:25












$begingroup$
Without you telling us what you would accept as first principles it will likely not be possible for anyone to give you an acceptable answer. You are clearly already aware of several proofs, but don’t like their “givens”. So you will need to identify what you are willing to accept as given.
$endgroup$
– Dale
Mar 25 at 1:25




$begingroup$
Without you telling us what you would accept as first principles it will likely not be possible for anyone to give you an acceptable answer. You are clearly already aware of several proofs, but don’t like their “givens”. So you will need to identify what you are willing to accept as given.
$endgroup$
– Dale
Mar 25 at 1:25




1




1




$begingroup$
Math.SE could still work, and this question would be better suited for there, as it's purely about theoretical mathematics. "First principles" in mathematics do exist. They're called "axioms". That said, there is freedom in this case in what you will choose as your axioms - there are many equivalent sets that will describe the same thing, i.e. Euclidean plane geometry. The nature of the proof will then depend on which axiom set you choose to use.
$endgroup$
– The_Sympathizer
Mar 25 at 6:42




$begingroup$
Math.SE could still work, and this question would be better suited for there, as it's purely about theoretical mathematics. "First principles" in mathematics do exist. They're called "axioms". That said, there is freedom in this case in what you will choose as your axioms - there are many equivalent sets that will describe the same thing, i.e. Euclidean plane geometry. The nature of the proof will then depend on which axiom set you choose to use.
$endgroup$
– The_Sympathizer
Mar 25 at 6:42










3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes


















3












$begingroup$

I'm not certain it will actually help clear up anything at all for you, but it's worth knowing that other folks before you have asked much the same thing, some of them with considerable profit from the exercise. The classic example of this is Riemann's "Inaugural Lecture," of which there is a translation near the start of Volume 3 of Spivak's Differential Geometry. A somewhat less understandable (!) translation is available here: https://www.maths.tcd.ie/pub/HistMath/People/Riemann/Geom/WKCGeom.html.



One question to ask yourself is "What are my first principles, and why?" Another is "Under which sets of first principles is the theorem true?" For the second, you've already observed that for curved spaces, it doesn't necessarily hold. So what axioms are you willing to use to define "not curved spaces"?



Hilbert's version of Euclid's Axioms is a pretty good start. Of course, they spend a lot of time talking about lines and intersections and angle measures, and the resulting proofs of the Pythagorean Theorem use things that seem apparently irrelevant, like squares constructed on the triangle sides, and translations/rotations in the plane, etc. But there's a reason for that: the Euclidean axioms are about as simple as you can make them, which necessarily means that it's quite some distance from the axioms to the more interesting theorems.



There's a related reason that has to do with philosophy and status and a bunch of other things, and I sadly can't recall where I first read this: Euclid and friends were not much interested in numbers and measurements --- those were things that concerned tradesmen and shopkeepers rather than philosophers. As philosophers, they thought of ratios as the far more central concept. Things like algebra were ... well, they were irrelevant to some degree. So to the Greeks, the claim is not that $a^2 + b^2 = c^2$, but instead that if you erect a square on each leg of the right triangle, and another square on the hypotenuse, then the "sum" of the first two squares is the third square, where "sum" here literally meant some kind of addition of areas (done via cutting and pasting, without too much concern about whether this was indeed well-defined) rather than about sums of numbers.



A modern view says that there's an area-measurement function, and that the whole greek argument boils down to (1)it being additive on disjoint sets or something, (2) it being invariant under congruence transformations, and to one key lemma: the area-function, applied to a triangle of base $b$ and height $h$, yields $(1/2)b h$ [or an equally simple lemma about rectangles]. But to the greek mathematicians, "measurement" wasn't the kind of central idea it is now.



At least some historians of mathematics believe that tradespeople had known Pythagoras's theorem long before it was proved as a geometric theorem --- it was the sort of thing that made it easy to lay out the foundations of a house in a rectangle rather than a somewhat skewed parallelogram!



I'm rambling here, and I apologize. At the heart of things, I suggest you think hard about what you believe are your "first principles", and why. Only then can you get a really satisfactory answer to your question.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$




















    1












    $begingroup$

    Here you go: things that are independent add in quadrature. That is the concept.



    It works for error propagation, random noise, I/Q modulated signals, the real and imaginary parts of an S-matrix, and the magnitudes of vectors. The last case being the Pythagorean theorem.



    Of course, vectors that are independent are perpendicular, or:



    $$ vec a cdot vec bequiv frac 1 4[(vec a + vec b)^2 -(vec a -vec b)^2] = abcostheta = 0$$



    which implies:



    $$ costheta = 0$$



    $$ theta = 90^circ $$



    (Note: I used the coordinate free definition of the dot product to provide food for thought).






    share|cite|improve this answer









    $endgroup$








    • 1




      $begingroup$
      Does your rule apply to e.g., probabilities?
      $endgroup$
      – innisfree
      Mar 25 at 3:10


















    1












    $begingroup$

    If you are working in a Euclidean space with the standard inner product $vec a cdot vec b = sum a_i b_i$ and the related metric $|vec x| = sqrtvec x cdot vec x$ then the Pythagorean theoem is a simple consequence of the axioms of the space. If $vec a cdot vec b = 0$ then



    $|vec a + vec b|^2 = (vec a + vec b) cdot (vec a + vec b) = vec a cdot vec a + vec b cdot vec b = |vec a|^2 + |vec b|^2$



    If you are working in a non-Euclidean space then the Pythagorean theorem may not be true.



    If you want to physically validate the Pythagorean theorem (or, more precisely, validate that the spatial dimensions in an inertial frame act like a Euclidean space) then you will have to carry out a physical experiment using, for example, light beams as your straight lines, accurate clocks to determine distance, and working in free fall.






    share|cite|improve this answer









    $endgroup$













      Your Answer








      StackExchange.ready(function()
      var channelOptions =
      tags: "".split(" "),
      id: "69"
      ;
      initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

      StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
      // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
      if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
      StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
      createEditor();
      );

      else
      createEditor();

      );

      function createEditor()
      StackExchange.prepareEditor(
      heartbeatType: 'answer',
      autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
      convertImagesToLinks: true,
      noModals: true,
      showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
      reputationToPostImages: 10,
      bindNavPrevention: true,
      postfix: "",
      imageUploader:
      brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
      contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
      allowUrls: true
      ,
      noCode: true, onDemand: true,
      discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
      ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
      );



      );













      draft saved

      draft discarded


















      StackExchange.ready(
      function ()
      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3161487%2flooking-for-a-conceptual-proof-of-the-pythagorean-theorem-from-first-principles%23new-answer', 'question_page');

      );

      Post as a guest















      Required, but never shown

























      3 Answers
      3






      active

      oldest

      votes








      3 Answers
      3






      active

      oldest

      votes









      active

      oldest

      votes






      active

      oldest

      votes









      3












      $begingroup$

      I'm not certain it will actually help clear up anything at all for you, but it's worth knowing that other folks before you have asked much the same thing, some of them with considerable profit from the exercise. The classic example of this is Riemann's "Inaugural Lecture," of which there is a translation near the start of Volume 3 of Spivak's Differential Geometry. A somewhat less understandable (!) translation is available here: https://www.maths.tcd.ie/pub/HistMath/People/Riemann/Geom/WKCGeom.html.



      One question to ask yourself is "What are my first principles, and why?" Another is "Under which sets of first principles is the theorem true?" For the second, you've already observed that for curved spaces, it doesn't necessarily hold. So what axioms are you willing to use to define "not curved spaces"?



      Hilbert's version of Euclid's Axioms is a pretty good start. Of course, they spend a lot of time talking about lines and intersections and angle measures, and the resulting proofs of the Pythagorean Theorem use things that seem apparently irrelevant, like squares constructed on the triangle sides, and translations/rotations in the plane, etc. But there's a reason for that: the Euclidean axioms are about as simple as you can make them, which necessarily means that it's quite some distance from the axioms to the more interesting theorems.



      There's a related reason that has to do with philosophy and status and a bunch of other things, and I sadly can't recall where I first read this: Euclid and friends were not much interested in numbers and measurements --- those were things that concerned tradesmen and shopkeepers rather than philosophers. As philosophers, they thought of ratios as the far more central concept. Things like algebra were ... well, they were irrelevant to some degree. So to the Greeks, the claim is not that $a^2 + b^2 = c^2$, but instead that if you erect a square on each leg of the right triangle, and another square on the hypotenuse, then the "sum" of the first two squares is the third square, where "sum" here literally meant some kind of addition of areas (done via cutting and pasting, without too much concern about whether this was indeed well-defined) rather than about sums of numbers.



      A modern view says that there's an area-measurement function, and that the whole greek argument boils down to (1)it being additive on disjoint sets or something, (2) it being invariant under congruence transformations, and to one key lemma: the area-function, applied to a triangle of base $b$ and height $h$, yields $(1/2)b h$ [or an equally simple lemma about rectangles]. But to the greek mathematicians, "measurement" wasn't the kind of central idea it is now.



      At least some historians of mathematics believe that tradespeople had known Pythagoras's theorem long before it was proved as a geometric theorem --- it was the sort of thing that made it easy to lay out the foundations of a house in a rectangle rather than a somewhat skewed parallelogram!



      I'm rambling here, and I apologize. At the heart of things, I suggest you think hard about what you believe are your "first principles", and why. Only then can you get a really satisfactory answer to your question.






      share|cite|improve this answer









      $endgroup$

















        3












        $begingroup$

        I'm not certain it will actually help clear up anything at all for you, but it's worth knowing that other folks before you have asked much the same thing, some of them with considerable profit from the exercise. The classic example of this is Riemann's "Inaugural Lecture," of which there is a translation near the start of Volume 3 of Spivak's Differential Geometry. A somewhat less understandable (!) translation is available here: https://www.maths.tcd.ie/pub/HistMath/People/Riemann/Geom/WKCGeom.html.



        One question to ask yourself is "What are my first principles, and why?" Another is "Under which sets of first principles is the theorem true?" For the second, you've already observed that for curved spaces, it doesn't necessarily hold. So what axioms are you willing to use to define "not curved spaces"?



        Hilbert's version of Euclid's Axioms is a pretty good start. Of course, they spend a lot of time talking about lines and intersections and angle measures, and the resulting proofs of the Pythagorean Theorem use things that seem apparently irrelevant, like squares constructed on the triangle sides, and translations/rotations in the plane, etc. But there's a reason for that: the Euclidean axioms are about as simple as you can make them, which necessarily means that it's quite some distance from the axioms to the more interesting theorems.



        There's a related reason that has to do with philosophy and status and a bunch of other things, and I sadly can't recall where I first read this: Euclid and friends were not much interested in numbers and measurements --- those were things that concerned tradesmen and shopkeepers rather than philosophers. As philosophers, they thought of ratios as the far more central concept. Things like algebra were ... well, they were irrelevant to some degree. So to the Greeks, the claim is not that $a^2 + b^2 = c^2$, but instead that if you erect a square on each leg of the right triangle, and another square on the hypotenuse, then the "sum" of the first two squares is the third square, where "sum" here literally meant some kind of addition of areas (done via cutting and pasting, without too much concern about whether this was indeed well-defined) rather than about sums of numbers.



        A modern view says that there's an area-measurement function, and that the whole greek argument boils down to (1)it being additive on disjoint sets or something, (2) it being invariant under congruence transformations, and to one key lemma: the area-function, applied to a triangle of base $b$ and height $h$, yields $(1/2)b h$ [or an equally simple lemma about rectangles]. But to the greek mathematicians, "measurement" wasn't the kind of central idea it is now.



        At least some historians of mathematics believe that tradespeople had known Pythagoras's theorem long before it was proved as a geometric theorem --- it was the sort of thing that made it easy to lay out the foundations of a house in a rectangle rather than a somewhat skewed parallelogram!



        I'm rambling here, and I apologize. At the heart of things, I suggest you think hard about what you believe are your "first principles", and why. Only then can you get a really satisfactory answer to your question.






        share|cite|improve this answer









        $endgroup$















          3












          3








          3





          $begingroup$

          I'm not certain it will actually help clear up anything at all for you, but it's worth knowing that other folks before you have asked much the same thing, some of them with considerable profit from the exercise. The classic example of this is Riemann's "Inaugural Lecture," of which there is a translation near the start of Volume 3 of Spivak's Differential Geometry. A somewhat less understandable (!) translation is available here: https://www.maths.tcd.ie/pub/HistMath/People/Riemann/Geom/WKCGeom.html.



          One question to ask yourself is "What are my first principles, and why?" Another is "Under which sets of first principles is the theorem true?" For the second, you've already observed that for curved spaces, it doesn't necessarily hold. So what axioms are you willing to use to define "not curved spaces"?



          Hilbert's version of Euclid's Axioms is a pretty good start. Of course, they spend a lot of time talking about lines and intersections and angle measures, and the resulting proofs of the Pythagorean Theorem use things that seem apparently irrelevant, like squares constructed on the triangle sides, and translations/rotations in the plane, etc. But there's a reason for that: the Euclidean axioms are about as simple as you can make them, which necessarily means that it's quite some distance from the axioms to the more interesting theorems.



          There's a related reason that has to do with philosophy and status and a bunch of other things, and I sadly can't recall where I first read this: Euclid and friends were not much interested in numbers and measurements --- those were things that concerned tradesmen and shopkeepers rather than philosophers. As philosophers, they thought of ratios as the far more central concept. Things like algebra were ... well, they were irrelevant to some degree. So to the Greeks, the claim is not that $a^2 + b^2 = c^2$, but instead that if you erect a square on each leg of the right triangle, and another square on the hypotenuse, then the "sum" of the first two squares is the third square, where "sum" here literally meant some kind of addition of areas (done via cutting and pasting, without too much concern about whether this was indeed well-defined) rather than about sums of numbers.



          A modern view says that there's an area-measurement function, and that the whole greek argument boils down to (1)it being additive on disjoint sets or something, (2) it being invariant under congruence transformations, and to one key lemma: the area-function, applied to a triangle of base $b$ and height $h$, yields $(1/2)b h$ [or an equally simple lemma about rectangles]. But to the greek mathematicians, "measurement" wasn't the kind of central idea it is now.



          At least some historians of mathematics believe that tradespeople had known Pythagoras's theorem long before it was proved as a geometric theorem --- it was the sort of thing that made it easy to lay out the foundations of a house in a rectangle rather than a somewhat skewed parallelogram!



          I'm rambling here, and I apologize. At the heart of things, I suggest you think hard about what you believe are your "first principles", and why. Only then can you get a really satisfactory answer to your question.






          share|cite|improve this answer









          $endgroup$



          I'm not certain it will actually help clear up anything at all for you, but it's worth knowing that other folks before you have asked much the same thing, some of them with considerable profit from the exercise. The classic example of this is Riemann's "Inaugural Lecture," of which there is a translation near the start of Volume 3 of Spivak's Differential Geometry. A somewhat less understandable (!) translation is available here: https://www.maths.tcd.ie/pub/HistMath/People/Riemann/Geom/WKCGeom.html.



          One question to ask yourself is "What are my first principles, and why?" Another is "Under which sets of first principles is the theorem true?" For the second, you've already observed that for curved spaces, it doesn't necessarily hold. So what axioms are you willing to use to define "not curved spaces"?



          Hilbert's version of Euclid's Axioms is a pretty good start. Of course, they spend a lot of time talking about lines and intersections and angle measures, and the resulting proofs of the Pythagorean Theorem use things that seem apparently irrelevant, like squares constructed on the triangle sides, and translations/rotations in the plane, etc. But there's a reason for that: the Euclidean axioms are about as simple as you can make them, which necessarily means that it's quite some distance from the axioms to the more interesting theorems.



          There's a related reason that has to do with philosophy and status and a bunch of other things, and I sadly can't recall where I first read this: Euclid and friends were not much interested in numbers and measurements --- those were things that concerned tradesmen and shopkeepers rather than philosophers. As philosophers, they thought of ratios as the far more central concept. Things like algebra were ... well, they were irrelevant to some degree. So to the Greeks, the claim is not that $a^2 + b^2 = c^2$, but instead that if you erect a square on each leg of the right triangle, and another square on the hypotenuse, then the "sum" of the first two squares is the third square, where "sum" here literally meant some kind of addition of areas (done via cutting and pasting, without too much concern about whether this was indeed well-defined) rather than about sums of numbers.



          A modern view says that there's an area-measurement function, and that the whole greek argument boils down to (1)it being additive on disjoint sets or something, (2) it being invariant under congruence transformations, and to one key lemma: the area-function, applied to a triangle of base $b$ and height $h$, yields $(1/2)b h$ [or an equally simple lemma about rectangles]. But to the greek mathematicians, "measurement" wasn't the kind of central idea it is now.



          At least some historians of mathematics believe that tradespeople had known Pythagoras's theorem long before it was proved as a geometric theorem --- it was the sort of thing that made it easy to lay out the foundations of a house in a rectangle rather than a somewhat skewed parallelogram!



          I'm rambling here, and I apologize. At the heart of things, I suggest you think hard about what you believe are your "first principles", and why. Only then can you get a really satisfactory answer to your question.







          share|cite|improve this answer












          share|cite|improve this answer



          share|cite|improve this answer










          answered Mar 26 at 13:49









          John HughesJohn Hughes

          65.4k24293




          65.4k24293





















              1












              $begingroup$

              Here you go: things that are independent add in quadrature. That is the concept.



              It works for error propagation, random noise, I/Q modulated signals, the real and imaginary parts of an S-matrix, and the magnitudes of vectors. The last case being the Pythagorean theorem.



              Of course, vectors that are independent are perpendicular, or:



              $$ vec a cdot vec bequiv frac 1 4[(vec a + vec b)^2 -(vec a -vec b)^2] = abcostheta = 0$$



              which implies:



              $$ costheta = 0$$



              $$ theta = 90^circ $$



              (Note: I used the coordinate free definition of the dot product to provide food for thought).






              share|cite|improve this answer









              $endgroup$








              • 1




                $begingroup$
                Does your rule apply to e.g., probabilities?
                $endgroup$
                – innisfree
                Mar 25 at 3:10















              1












              $begingroup$

              Here you go: things that are independent add in quadrature. That is the concept.



              It works for error propagation, random noise, I/Q modulated signals, the real and imaginary parts of an S-matrix, and the magnitudes of vectors. The last case being the Pythagorean theorem.



              Of course, vectors that are independent are perpendicular, or:



              $$ vec a cdot vec bequiv frac 1 4[(vec a + vec b)^2 -(vec a -vec b)^2] = abcostheta = 0$$



              which implies:



              $$ costheta = 0$$



              $$ theta = 90^circ $$



              (Note: I used the coordinate free definition of the dot product to provide food for thought).






              share|cite|improve this answer









              $endgroup$








              • 1




                $begingroup$
                Does your rule apply to e.g., probabilities?
                $endgroup$
                – innisfree
                Mar 25 at 3:10













              1












              1








              1





              $begingroup$

              Here you go: things that are independent add in quadrature. That is the concept.



              It works for error propagation, random noise, I/Q modulated signals, the real and imaginary parts of an S-matrix, and the magnitudes of vectors. The last case being the Pythagorean theorem.



              Of course, vectors that are independent are perpendicular, or:



              $$ vec a cdot vec bequiv frac 1 4[(vec a + vec b)^2 -(vec a -vec b)^2] = abcostheta = 0$$



              which implies:



              $$ costheta = 0$$



              $$ theta = 90^circ $$



              (Note: I used the coordinate free definition of the dot product to provide food for thought).






              share|cite|improve this answer









              $endgroup$



              Here you go: things that are independent add in quadrature. That is the concept.



              It works for error propagation, random noise, I/Q modulated signals, the real and imaginary parts of an S-matrix, and the magnitudes of vectors. The last case being the Pythagorean theorem.



              Of course, vectors that are independent are perpendicular, or:



              $$ vec a cdot vec bequiv frac 1 4[(vec a + vec b)^2 -(vec a -vec b)^2] = abcostheta = 0$$



              which implies:



              $$ costheta = 0$$



              $$ theta = 90^circ $$



              (Note: I used the coordinate free definition of the dot product to provide food for thought).







              share|cite|improve this answer












              share|cite|improve this answer



              share|cite|improve this answer










              answered Mar 25 at 3:04







              JEB














              • 1




                $begingroup$
                Does your rule apply to e.g., probabilities?
                $endgroup$
                – innisfree
                Mar 25 at 3:10












              • 1




                $begingroup$
                Does your rule apply to e.g., probabilities?
                $endgroup$
                – innisfree
                Mar 25 at 3:10







              1




              1




              $begingroup$
              Does your rule apply to e.g., probabilities?
              $endgroup$
              – innisfree
              Mar 25 at 3:10




              $begingroup$
              Does your rule apply to e.g., probabilities?
              $endgroup$
              – innisfree
              Mar 25 at 3:10











              1












              $begingroup$

              If you are working in a Euclidean space with the standard inner product $vec a cdot vec b = sum a_i b_i$ and the related metric $|vec x| = sqrtvec x cdot vec x$ then the Pythagorean theoem is a simple consequence of the axioms of the space. If $vec a cdot vec b = 0$ then



              $|vec a + vec b|^2 = (vec a + vec b) cdot (vec a + vec b) = vec a cdot vec a + vec b cdot vec b = |vec a|^2 + |vec b|^2$



              If you are working in a non-Euclidean space then the Pythagorean theorem may not be true.



              If you want to physically validate the Pythagorean theorem (or, more precisely, validate that the spatial dimensions in an inertial frame act like a Euclidean space) then you will have to carry out a physical experiment using, for example, light beams as your straight lines, accurate clocks to determine distance, and working in free fall.






              share|cite|improve this answer









              $endgroup$

















                1












                $begingroup$

                If you are working in a Euclidean space with the standard inner product $vec a cdot vec b = sum a_i b_i$ and the related metric $|vec x| = sqrtvec x cdot vec x$ then the Pythagorean theoem is a simple consequence of the axioms of the space. If $vec a cdot vec b = 0$ then



                $|vec a + vec b|^2 = (vec a + vec b) cdot (vec a + vec b) = vec a cdot vec a + vec b cdot vec b = |vec a|^2 + |vec b|^2$



                If you are working in a non-Euclidean space then the Pythagorean theorem may not be true.



                If you want to physically validate the Pythagorean theorem (or, more precisely, validate that the spatial dimensions in an inertial frame act like a Euclidean space) then you will have to carry out a physical experiment using, for example, light beams as your straight lines, accurate clocks to determine distance, and working in free fall.






                share|cite|improve this answer









                $endgroup$















                  1












                  1








                  1





                  $begingroup$

                  If you are working in a Euclidean space with the standard inner product $vec a cdot vec b = sum a_i b_i$ and the related metric $|vec x| = sqrtvec x cdot vec x$ then the Pythagorean theoem is a simple consequence of the axioms of the space. If $vec a cdot vec b = 0$ then



                  $|vec a + vec b|^2 = (vec a + vec b) cdot (vec a + vec b) = vec a cdot vec a + vec b cdot vec b = |vec a|^2 + |vec b|^2$



                  If you are working in a non-Euclidean space then the Pythagorean theorem may not be true.



                  If you want to physically validate the Pythagorean theorem (or, more precisely, validate that the spatial dimensions in an inertial frame act like a Euclidean space) then you will have to carry out a physical experiment using, for example, light beams as your straight lines, accurate clocks to determine distance, and working in free fall.






                  share|cite|improve this answer









                  $endgroup$



                  If you are working in a Euclidean space with the standard inner product $vec a cdot vec b = sum a_i b_i$ and the related metric $|vec x| = sqrtvec x cdot vec x$ then the Pythagorean theoem is a simple consequence of the axioms of the space. If $vec a cdot vec b = 0$ then



                  $|vec a + vec b|^2 = (vec a + vec b) cdot (vec a + vec b) = vec a cdot vec a + vec b cdot vec b = |vec a|^2 + |vec b|^2$



                  If you are working in a non-Euclidean space then the Pythagorean theorem may not be true.



                  If you want to physically validate the Pythagorean theorem (or, more precisely, validate that the spatial dimensions in an inertial frame act like a Euclidean space) then you will have to carry out a physical experiment using, for example, light beams as your straight lines, accurate clocks to determine distance, and working in free fall.







                  share|cite|improve this answer












                  share|cite|improve this answer



                  share|cite|improve this answer










                  answered Mar 26 at 13:25









                  gandalf61gandalf61

                  9,263825




                  9,263825



























                      draft saved

                      draft discarded
















































                      Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!


                      • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                      But avoid


                      • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                      • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

                      Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


                      To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                      draft saved


                      draft discarded














                      StackExchange.ready(
                      function ()
                      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3161487%2flooking-for-a-conceptual-proof-of-the-pythagorean-theorem-from-first-principles%23new-answer', 'question_page');

                      );

                      Post as a guest















                      Required, but never shown





















































                      Required, but never shown














                      Required, but never shown












                      Required, but never shown







                      Required, but never shown

































                      Required, but never shown














                      Required, but never shown












                      Required, but never shown







                      Required, but never shown







                      Popular posts from this blog

                      How should I support this large drywall patch? Planned maintenance scheduled April 23, 2019 at 00:00UTC (8:00pm US/Eastern) Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara Unicorn Meta Zoo #1: Why another podcast?How do I cover large gaps in drywall?How do I keep drywall around a patch from crumbling?Can I glue a second layer of drywall?How to patch long strip on drywall?Large drywall patch: how to avoid bulging seams?Drywall Mesh Patch vs. Bulge? To remove or not to remove?How to fix this drywall job?Prep drywall before backsplashWhat's the best way to fix this horrible drywall patch job?Drywall patching using 3M Patch Plus Primer

                      random experiment with two different functions on unit interval Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara Planned maintenance scheduled April 23, 2019 at 00:00UTC (8:00pm US/Eastern)Random variable and probability space notionsRandom Walk with EdgesFinding functions where the increase over a random interval is Poisson distributedNumber of days until dayCan an observed event in fact be of zero probability?Unit random processmodels of coins and uniform distributionHow to get the number of successes given $n$ trials , probability $P$ and a random variable $X$Absorbing Markov chain in a computer. Is “almost every” turned into always convergence in computer executions?Stopped random walk is not uniformly integrable

                      Lowndes Grove History Architecture References Navigation menu32°48′6″N 79°57′58″W / 32.80167°N 79.96611°W / 32.80167; -79.9661132°48′6″N 79°57′58″W / 32.80167°N 79.96611°W / 32.80167; -79.9661178002500"National Register Information System"Historic houses of South Carolina"Lowndes Grove""+32° 48' 6.00", −79° 57' 58.00""Lowndes Grove, Charleston County (260 St. Margaret St., Charleston)""Lowndes Grove"The Charleston ExpositionIt Happened in South Carolina"Lowndes Grove (House), Saint Margaret Street & Sixth Avenue, Charleston, Charleston County, SC(Photographs)"Plantations of the Carolina Low Countrye