Talk:List of theorems

Untitled
Empty first sections make the "edit" links messy. Please do not touch this notice. Thanks.

TODO
I think it would be good to put some to dos here. Charles Matthews 11:11, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC) Well - it's a start. A full list would run to several thousand, it seems. Charles Matthews 15:51, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Abel's theorem (Jacobian variety) - Ax-Kochen theorem - Banach-Mazur theorem - Bass-Heller-Swan theorem - Bertini's theorem - Blaschke selection theorem - Bloch's theorem - Bombieri-Vinogradov theorem - Boone-Novikov theorem - Brauer-Hasse-Noether theorem - Closed subgroup theorem - Grothendieck's representation theorem  - Malgrange preparation theorem - Max Noether's Fundamentalsatz - Mittag-Leffler theorem - Schwarz's kernel theorem  - Thom isotopy theorem - Thom transversality theorem - Zariski's Main theorem

Areas of knowledge
Shouldn't there be a restriction on which areas these theorems come from???

Maybe split into (list of theorems (''insert area e.g maths/philosophy etc.)) Chrissmith 11:15, Apr 14, 2004 (UTC)

To take an analogous case: List of equations doesn't make that sort of distinction. It's a list of things labelled 'equation'. Usually it would be argued that if someone wants a more specialised list - say list of thermodynamic theorems - they should just go ahead. It doesn't matter so much; just better to avoid demarcation disputes. Would Noether's theorem be maths or physics? That's a reasonable test case: basically it's a bit of both.

Charles Matthews 11:32, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Genitive
I am not a native English speaker... What's the rule (if there is any) to use  's  or not?. Thanks. Pfortuny 17:14, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Better without the 's, really - but in some cases it's so traditional ...

Charles Matthews 18:01, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

So perhaps it's best to create, say, Choquet's theorem first; and then move the page to Choquet theorem later.

Charles Matthews 08:50, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

List of mathematical theorems (?)
My oppinion is that is something may be called a theorem it is because it is in some way formalizable in a logico-mathematical system, and so is its proof. Hence, any thing which can be called a theorem is automaticallly "mathematical". So... I would understand a list of physical, economical, etc... but not mathematical. (I am including logic etc... in "mathematics"). However, this is disputable :D (And I do not want to spoil anyone's work).Pfortuny 10:10, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * OK, I've just read the introduction again and it appears that under that definition, there may be theorems which are not mathematical... This makes me shiver :) ... If we keep that introduction then it makes sense, but for my taste, "mathematical theorems" sounds a bit repetitive. However, let's keep it for a while and then keep it for good. It will be useful, surely. Pfortuny 10:15, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Suggestions regarding the indexing\list
I think each theorem should be added with the general issue or area to which it applies. Examples for styling this addition: MathKnight 21:06, 14 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Cantor–Bernstein–Schroeder theorem (Set Theory, Cardinal numbers)
 * Binomial theorem (Combinatorics, Algebra)

Well, OK: if you want to do the work. Mostly, lists are just lists (that is not true of list of algorithms, and you might argue that the needs here are similar). I now maintain 72 lists here - so I prefer simplicity ...

Charles Matthews 21:21, 14 May 2004 (UTC)

I'll add some and I hope others will contribute as well. MathKnight 22:35, 14 May 2004 (UTC)

I think the category\topic should be in italics in order to distinguish it from the theorem name. MathKnight 20:42, 16 May 2004 (UTC)

The style

X theorem (topology)

is better than

X theorem (topology).

Charles Matthews 07:14, 20 May 2004 (UTC)

I agree. MathKnight 07:54, 20 May 2004 ( UTC)

So, I have finished adding some category to each theorem here. Charles Matthews 07:50, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Made list consistent style, italics inside parens. KSmrq 07:44, 2005 July 12 (UTC)

Theorem that in a finite space a slower pursuer will eventually catch a faster fleeer
Hi Everyone,

I have heard of this 14th century theorem that in a finite space a slower pursuer will eventually catch a faster fleeer.

The proof goes something on the lines of this: The fleer runs away in a direction perpendicular to the motion of the pursuer, because that is the direction in which the pursuer has no component of velocity.

The pursuer always keeps changing his direction of motion to the straight line joining the pursuer and fleer.

Because of the finite space the pursuer will eventually catch the fleer.

If anyone has heard of the proof please let me know.

You can email me at emmanuel dot e at gmx dot net.

Thanks, Emmanuel

I think this is a counterexample: http://img242.imageshack.us/img242/3301/fleeerpursuerje2.png BTW, I made this image and release it into the public domain. 98.203.237.75 (talk) 08:57, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned articles with "theorem" in their titles
After the list for July 2009 had been completed, I searched for the character string "theorem" in the lists for the first seven months of 2009 at Category:Orphaned articles, and I found these orphaned articles.

January 2009

 * Compression theorem

February 2009
--Wavelength (talk) 23:22, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Bohr–van Leeuwen theorem
 * Burke's theorem
 * König's theorem (kinetics)
 * Optical equivalence theorem
 * Pandya theorem
 * Quantum threshold theorem
 * Rationality theorem
 * Sipser–Lautemann theorem


 * I have added to the list seven of those nine theorems. Burke's theorem and König's theorem (kinetics) were already listed.
 * -- Wavelength (talk) 05:23, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Entries without a link to a Wikipedia article
I think it is useful to list also entries for which no article exists yet. Wilkibur 00:18, 6 November 2016