Math students and researchers, can you roughly describe the first original result you ever proved?

math students and researchers, can you roughly describe the first original result you ever proved?

Quest [to be more] and question [everything and everyone].
Then start with "reasonable" statements of fact, civility and humanity.

Nice reading comprehension.
OP is asking researchers about their own original results.

Stability and convergence analysis on a new numerical method for a specific pde.

do you mean serious results or memeresults that were discovered in high school / undergrad?

If the latter, (though I'm certain this is widely known) I found this in high school and proved it in first year of undergrad (as well as some more general identities):

[math]\sum_{k=0}^{n}(-1)^{n-k}\dbinom{n}{k}(k+l)^{n}=n![/math]

I'm impressed
if true

I made a new Interpolation technique when I was 17, last year. Awaiting publication.

doesn't have to be serious but it has to be original and at least somewhat mathematically interesting. Like something you proved during an REU or a research project with a prof

I proved there are only 2 genders.

It's not original because it was solved before, but I proved the third homotopy group of the 2-sphere is Z using knot theory. I think the original proof by Serre was algebraic.

I proved P=NP while waiting on my food at a restaurant once, on a napkin. I then got up to go to the bathroom, and when I got back, I found the waiter had taken it along with the remainder of my spinach dip and thrown it away. I have never been so pissed in my entire life.

I didn't know yahoo answers had referees.

Simple combinatorial results.

I showed the existence of a polynomial time algorithm for a certain coalition-formation game.

What does the algorithm actually solve though?

bump

I proved something about polytopes but I'm not totally sure that it was original. Never got to publish it though.

I also proved something about generalized magic squares. Still haven't published that either though.

same here. it was for an REU

1st discovery was that if you take a large enough sample, the posterior distribution converges to a normal distribution and therefor the bayesian credible interval converges asymptotically to the frequentist confidence interval.

2nd discovery was that if you have a family of compactly supported functions you can make an adaptive gabor frame out of it by using parsevals formula in a clever way.

It solves the question, "Does there exist a polynomial time algorithm for a certain coalition-formation game, brainlet motherfucker.

I believe that that poster (and myself) aren't clear on what an algorithm for a coalition-formation game does. Like does it give a winning strategy, etc.

Constructed certain varieties whose rational points are determined entirely by cohomological properties. It turns out to prove a cute Galois theory result.

proved that every composite number other than 6 has dubs in at least one non trivial base (trivial bases are 1 and n-1).

also check'em.

Bateman's Lemma

A new proof is still a new result, user.

hmm, didn't Hurewicz prove that geometrically first?

I'm interested to know what you did to get to the results you got. I'm still not sure if I'm cut for research (I'm probably not), and what you guys have done seems like magic to me, so I'd thank you if you demystified this stuff for me.

tell me how you did this

Talk to a professor. Presumably you're an undergrad; they will be more than happy to guide you through a problem. You will be given a problem that is open, but which your prof knows how to solve already. He/she will probably just give you a set of technical details to prove, and then later on show you how the pieces fit together, why you might care, where it all comes from, etc.

I created and substantiated a new cryptographic design and proof paradigm consolidating about 60 years of parallel (recent) work (technically thousands of years of historical work). I then found a novel cryptographic task, used the paradigm to design a construction meeting the needs of the task, and then I gave a formal proof of secrecy using the proof framework admitted by my paradigm.

Sounds immensely impressive. Is it really, or is it just my ignorance?

Oddball combinatorics results mostly

I did get to characterize the automorphism group of the hypercube for a graph coloring problem though

It'll be foundational to many real-world systems if people see a need for the specific use case. It was a lot of work, I'll tell you that.

The first result I proved was that 0 is even. Before you complain, you didn't say the result had to be original.

How about some details? This is a big claim.

i proved OP=fgt

>you didn't say the result had to be original
>I literally did

How does it feel to be succesful? Also, why do you come here?

How can you prove a tautology?

Well how do we know it's a tautology before we prove it?

I think you are confusing tautologies and axioms.
Tautologies are basic statements assumed to be intuitively true. Axioms are the true statements of a system. Learn logic, dickweed

cant tell if trolling or being stupid

I breathed audibly through my nose

I wouldn't say that I feel particularly successful. I don't know what the threshold of success is for myself.

I'm currently trying to get through life with the feeling that I didn't waste it. I also come here for the occasional intelligent discussion that crops up.

> I don't know what the threshold of success is for myself.

If it helps you at all, for me it'd be to go to some maths conference to give a talk, spending some quality time as buddies with the top people of my field, and having them sincerely say that my part (and my overall work) was nice.

I hope my insecurities don't take me to a point where that happens and I'm not satisfied because of envy and a deep feeling of worthlessness.

technically I postulated the axiom, and proved that we could derive the other axioms of axiomatic meme theory from this one postulate; despite resistance from the old guard, it was adopted into standard use in the field of pure memery due to the great utility it provided in proving all other forms of chanfaggotry

I've already done the conference bit; it was really a bit of a letdown--enough of one to make me decide that I would rather do research in industry rather than academia.

I suppose I might feel as though I've passed a certain threshold of success if I were to win one of the bigger awards in my field, but I've come to know that even those are largely political and not correlated with the value of contributions made.

Proved that you can't get an A in linear algebra if you rely only on reading the textbook while not doing any of the recommended problems.

can confirm it was troll ;)

By computing a determinant, I broke a so-called fix of a very complicated for nothing cryptographic scheme using maths in the crypto way aka "let's use the most retarded notations ever so that nobody will want to check details".

Doing science is also being good at "selling your stuff", be it good or not. user's work may be very good.

It's probably well-known, but

A/B < C/D, with B, D > 0

Gives us : A/B < (A+C)/(B+D) < C/D

ie, the rationals are dense.

The sum of the natural numbers is -1/12

idk just bloody google it man