TE
科技回声
首页24小时热榜最新最佳问答展示工作
GitHubTwitter
首页

科技回声

基于 Next.js 构建的科技新闻平台,提供全球科技新闻和讨论内容。

GitHubTwitter

首页

首页最新最佳问答展示工作

资源链接

HackerNews API原版 HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 科技回声. 版权所有。

Five or ten new proofs of the Pythagorean Theorem

116 点作者 jhncls7 个月前

9 条评论

IsaacL7 个月前
I still maintain that this (originally from ancient China) is the clearest proof, and gives the best insight into <i>why</i> the Pythagorean Theorem holds.<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;cdn.britannica.com&#x2F;43&#x2F;70143-004-CCB17706&#x2F;theorem-demonstration-squares-proof-Pythagorean-b-square.jpg" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;cdn.britannica.com&#x2F;43&#x2F;70143-004-CCB17706&#x2F;theorem-dem...</a><p>It is not immediately obvious why the area of the hypotenuse square should be equal to the sum of the areas of squares drawn on the other two sides of the triangle.<p>It is clear that the lengths of a, b and c are connected -- if we are given the length of any two of (a, b, c), and one angle, then the remaining side can only have one possible length.<p>So far, so simple; what is less clear is why the exact relationship for right triangles is c^2 = a^2 + b^2.<p>The other proofs demonstrate that the relationship holds, but give little insight.<p>The geometric proof linked above makes the relationship crystal-clear.<p>For any right triangle we can define a &#x27;big square&#x27; with sides (a + b). <i>The hypotenuse square is simply the area of the &#x27;big square&#x27; with 4 copies of the original triangle removed.</i><p>Simple algebra then gives us the formula for the hypotenuse square:<p>The big square has area: (a+b)^2 = a^2 + 2ab + b^2<p>The original triangle has area: ab&#x2F;2<p>1 big square minus four original triangles has area: (a+b)^2 - 4ab&#x2F;2 = a^2 + b^2<p>Similarly, if you take the hypotenuse square, and subtract 4 copies of the original triangle, you get a square with sides (b - a). This is trivial to prove with algebra but the geometric visualisation is quite neat, and makes clear why the hypotenuse square must always equal the sum of the other two squares.
tonystride7 个月前
Tbh this is a bit over my head as my music degree only qualifies me to count to four. But all joking aside, I wonder how Pythagoras would feel if he knew that one day he would be better known for this theorem and not for music?<p>I’m amazed by how many people I meet who don’t know about his contribution to the discovery and development of tonality! You mean the triangle guy invented music???
评论 #42011775 未加载
评论 #42006785 未加载
评论 #42008079 未加载
评论 #42012724 未加载
sitkack7 个月前
I really really recommend that people watch this 60 minutes interview with the authors&#x27; of these proofs.<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;watch?v=VHeWndnHuQs" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;watch?v=VHeWndnHuQs</a><p>What isn&#x27;t stressed enough is that they both came up with their respective proofs independently.
评论 #42011425 未加载
rhelz7 个月前
Yet another example of the power of Prizes....the authors mention that they were motivated by a $500 prize offered to students by a math volunteer at their high school.<p>What is so counter-intuitive to me is that if the authors had wanted to earn $500 (or $250 after splitting it) they could have just got a job at McDonalds. They would have earned that money with far less time and effort.<p>I&#x27;m kinda glad that nobody pointed that out to them though :-)<p>But Prize-awards seems to put us into an entirely different economic frame. You can&#x27;t say they did it just for the recognition, because if the prize wasn&#x27;t there they wouldn&#x27;t have bothered. But you also can&#x27;t say that they did it for the money, because the money was ludicrously low--even when valued at the rate of unskilled labor.
评论 #41992160 未加载
评论 #41991345 未加载
评论 #42016057 未加载
评论 #42013949 未加载
评论 #42013885 未加载
user0702237 个月前
semi related: I found Norman J. Wildberger rational trigonometry work very interesting. He ditches trigonometry in order to work with rational quantities. There was also a playlist on youtube of his work but I&#x27;m unable to find it for some reason<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Divine_Proportions:_Rational_Trigonometry_to_Universal_Geometry" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Divine_Proportions:_Rational_T...</a>
dr_dshiv7 个月前
The conclusion of this paper was so beautiful. A real feel good story.
eointierney7 个月前
One of the things I love about hacker news is that there&#x27;s no AI content. The other is that it&#x27;s like reading a commentary on our encyclopedia. I get to read thought happening.<p>Apropos of nothing, just saying, and this thread is a great example.<p>I always want to read more books after a good dose of hacker news.
评论 #42014298 未加载
eointierney7 个月前
One of the things I love about hacker news is that there&#x27;s no AI content. The other is that it&#x27;s like reading a commentary on our encyclopedia. I get to read thought happen.<p>Apropos of nothing, just saying, and this thread is a great example.<p>I always want to read more books after a good dose of hacker news.
fn-mote7 个月前
On one hand, I was ready to be interested.<p>However, I just cannot get excited about an article with proofs that:<p>(1) give a different name for methods that use sin(90)=1 vs only working with sine of an acute angle (&quot;cyclometric&quot; vs &quot;trigonometric&quot;, ugh)<p>(2) use &quot;high-powered&quot; methods like convergence of infinite geometric series to prove the Pythagorean theorem<p>(3) apply the law of sines several times to produce the Pythagorean theorem<p>I just couldn&#x27;t give it a chance. Give me a good old fashioned proof by a dissection diagram any day.
评论 #42013301 未加载
评论 #42012410 未加载
评论 #41992025 未加载
评论 #41992212 未加载
评论 #41991338 未加载
评论 #41991135 未加载