1

This question is probably a fixed up version of the unclear closed question Non-geometric Proof of Pythagorean Theorem. I have two questions. My first question is

Is $d((x, y), (z, w)) = \sqrt{(z - x)^2 + (w - y)^2}$ the unique binary function from $\mathbb{R}^2$ to $\mathbb{R}$, or unique function from $(\mathbb{R}^2)^2$ to $\mathbb{R}$ that satisfies the following properties?

  1. For any points $(x, y)$ and $(z, w)$ in $\mathbb{R}^2$, $d((0, 0), (z, w)) = d((x, y), (x + z, y + w))$
  2. For any point $(x, y)$ in $\mathbb{R}^2$, $d((0, 0), (x, y))$ is nonnegative
  3. For any nonnegative real number $x$, $d((0, 0), (x, 0)) = x$
  4. For any point $(x, y)$ in $\mathbb{R}^2$, $d((0, 0), (x, -y)) = d((0, 0), (x, y))$
  5. For any points $(x, y)$ and $(z, w)$ in $\mathbb{R}^2$, $d((0, 0), (xz - yw, xw + yz)) = d((0, 0), (x, y))d((0, 0), (z, w))$

My second question is

If the answer to my first question is yes, does that function also satisfy the additional properties using my definition of $\cos$ and $\sin$?

  1. The area of any square in $\mathbb{R}^2$ is the square of the length of its edges
  2. $\forall x \in \mathbb{R}d((0, 0), (\cos(x) ,\sin(x))) = 1$

I define $\cos$ and $\sin$ by the following differential equations.

  • $\cos(0) = 1$
  • $\sin(0) = 0$
  • $\sin' = \cos$
  • $\cos' = -\sin$

If there's exactly one binary function from $\mathbb{R}^2$ to $\mathbb{R}$ satisfying all 7 properties, that doesn't necessary mean there's exactly one binary function from $\mathbb{R}^2$ to $\mathbb{R}$ satisfying the first 5 properties. That's why I specifically asked if there exists a unique function satisfying the first 5 properties.

Timothy
  • 793
  • 5
    Could you please clarify what the actual question is? – Micapps Feb 06 '19 at 19:46
  • @Micapps I'm not sure if that's possible since distance was treated as an undefined concept that we assumed satisfies certain properties, so I had to specify that the task was to pick a definition that satisfies those properties if you can. I suppose I could have asked a clearer question that is a totally different less good question about whether you can prove the Pythaogren theorem when distance wasn't defined and we cannot assume it satisfies those property. Then the answer would be a very simple answer of no which doesn't help mathematics. With no assumptions about the distance formula, – Timothy Feb 06 '19 at 19:52
  • you even cannot prove that the distance formula is not a hyperbolic metric on $\mathbb{R}^2$. I'm sure some experts will be able to figure out what I mean by what I wrote, and I'm not sure it's even possible to fix it up to be understandable by most normal people without changing it to a totally different question. – Timothy Feb 06 '19 at 19:55
  • I reformatted the final sequence of equalities to respect the boundaries of the posting area. Please check that I did not unintentionally change your meaning. – hardmath Feb 06 '19 at 19:59
  • @hardmath I only know how to check edits from the comment menu after somebody else edits it but after somebody other than me who was probably you made the edit, I made another edit myself and now don't know how to check the difference between this revision and the one I posted at first so I cannot yet check whether its meaning was unintentionally changed. It probably ended up fine because changing the way my mathematical deductions were written removed the effect of the Stack Exchange glitch where a word sometimes appears in the middle of a big long MathJax piece of text even when I didn't – Timothy Feb 06 '19 at 20:14
  • write it there in the code. – Timothy Feb 06 '19 at 20:14
  • You mean that there is a certain distance between what you edited and what "the other one" has edited. – Jean Marie Feb 06 '19 at 20:18
  • To begin with you have it utter backwords. The distance formula is true because we assume the Pythogorean Theorem is true. We can't prove something using something derived from the result. – fleablood Feb 06 '19 at 20:22
  • I think you are confusing the abstract definition of a "distance" which is a function from $d:X\times X \to \mathbb R$ so that for all $x,y,z$ that $d(x,y) \ge 0$. $d(x,y) = d(y,x)$, $d(x,y) = 0 \iff x=y$, $d(x,z) \le d(x,y) + d(y,z)$. And then the question is of proving that id $D((x,y),(w,z))$ is defined as $\sqrt{(w-x)^2 + (z-y)^2}$ then $D$ satisfies what is known as a "distance". It doesn't mean that $D$ is how we measure distance if we were to take a yardstick and measure. – fleablood Feb 06 '19 at 20:27
  • @fleablood How do you prove it's consistent to assume the Pythagorean theorem? How do you prove that a way of defining distance that satisfies the 5 stated properties exists at all? Some people assume you can also assume the properties of volume that I stated but it turns out that it's not provable at all that such a way of defining volume even exists. To prove that a way of defining distance that satisfies those properties exists, I actually have to check that the deduced formula actually does satisfy them. – Timothy Feb 06 '19 at 20:27
  • ... Although if we DID take a yardstick and measured that is what we would get... if the Pythagorean theorem is true. AGAIN the Pythagorean Theorem proves the distance formula and not the other way around... but... – fleablood Feb 06 '19 at 20:29
  • .... the distance D is not the only way to define a "distance" there are infinitely many others. Another is $d(x,x) = 0$ but if $x \ne y$ then $d(x,y) =1$. That is every two points are all $1$ unit apart. That is a legitimate "distance". It's just not the "measure with a yardstick" distance. – fleablood Feb 06 '19 at 20:31
  • 1
    "How do you prove that a way of defining distance that satisfies the 5 stated properties exists at all?" By simply doing the math. $\sqrt{(x-w)^2 + (y-z)^2} \ge 0$. $\sqrt{(x-w)^2 + (y-z)^2} = \sqrt{(w-x)^2 + (z-y)^2}$ and $\sqrt{(x-w)^2 + (y-z)^2} = 0 \iff (x,y) = (w,z)$ and $\sqrt{(x-k)^2+(y-j)^2}\le\sqrt{(x-w)^2 + (y-z)^2} +\sqrt{(w-j)^2 + (z-k)^2}$. It's just math. – fleablood Feb 06 '19 at 20:34
  • You do realize that the Pythogorean Theorem is a result of Euclid's 5th postulate and Euclid's 5th postulate is an axiom, don't you. So no we don't know that the Pythogorean Theorem is actually true and no-one ever claimed that we did. – fleablood Feb 06 '19 at 20:38
  • @fleablood Some people define a proof in such a way that that's not a rigorous proof. I think that some university professors might sometimes ask on a test question to write a rigorous proof of a certain statement because they know there is one and they taught the class how to write a rigorous proof, and want to mark them on their ability to figure out how to write a rigorous proof because showing that they're able to figure out how to write one is a sign of smartness. I think that I gave a more rigorous proof that a certain function actually satisfies the 5 stated properties. I actually – Timothy Feb 06 '19 at 20:42
  • "How do you prove it's consistent to assume the Pythagorean theorem?" How do I prove what is consistent to assume the Pythagorean theroem. The cartesian coordinate is system of geometry that assumes we can fix a consistant rectangular grid of parallel lines. This is because we assume Euclids 5 postulate. Euclid proved the pythagorean theorem without grids. On our grid because the pythagorean theorem IS assumed to be true, you can verify the distance formula by drawing right triangles. You are doing it in the EXACT opposite order. You are literally putting Descartes before the course. – fleablood Feb 06 '19 at 20:43
  • didn't state the triangle inequality as one of the assumed properties. That's probably because It's obvious that the formula I justified in my question turns out to satisfy the triangle inequality. – Timothy Feb 06 '19 at 20:44
  • You can't write any proof, rigorous or not, without axioms or definitions. You need a definition of "distance" means. You can't prove that distance is intrinsically anything unless you actually have a formal system in which your definitions apply. If we have Euclid's 5th postulate as an axiom and definition of a right angle. Then we can prove the Pythogorean thereom. Then we can define the cartesian plane and proof that the distance formula does calculate the geometric distance. Or we could do it backwards; assume the distance formula as an axiom and prove Euclids 5th postulate. – fleablood Feb 06 '19 at 20:52
  • @fleablood I ended up deciding "It's my question. Only I know what questions I have so I'm the best at figuring out how to fix it up." so I ended up rewriting it entirely. My close vote came before I fixed it up. – Timothy Feb 07 '19 at 06:45
  • I will object your axioms: (4) appears be redundant while (5) is too strong: essentially says $|wz| = |w||z|$ for $w,z\in\Bbb C$. A more reasonable set of axioms is being a distance (positive, symmetric, respecting the triangular inequality), translation- and rotation-invariant and compatible with homotheties plus the scale-setting axiom (3). – Martín-Blas Pérez Pinilla Feb 14 '19 at 10:26
  • 1
    @Martin-Blas How would you define a rotation? If you define it by, say, ${{\cos\theta,-\sin\theta},{\sin\theta,\cos\theta}}$, then that would be as strong as axiom (5); why not, for example ${{\cos\theta,-\alpha\sin\theta},{\sin\theta/\alpha,\cos\theta}}$? – Chrystomath Feb 14 '19 at 10:44
  • @Chrystomath, totally true, you are right... – Martín-Blas Pérez Pinilla Feb 14 '19 at 10:54
  • @Chrystomath Actually a binary function from $\mathbb{R}^2$ to $\mathbb{R}$ satisfying all 7 properties I stated near the end does exist and I proved it in this question. – Timothy Feb 14 '19 at 17:42
  • @Chrystomath I actually used axiom 5 to deduce that any function $d$ satisfying all 5 axioms must be the function $d((x, y), (z, w)) = \sqrt{x^2 + y^2}$. – Timothy Feb 14 '19 at 17:53
  • @Timothy Yes but the question is why is it natural to assume axiom (5)? Other inner products that give ellipsoids could be just as natural in other contexts. – Chrystomath Feb 15 '19 at 09:11
  • @Chrystomath I think the proof of the Pythagoren theorem by similar triangles can be reduced to a proof of the distance formula using axiom 5. – Timothy Feb 15 '19 at 19:12
  • @Timothy But what are similar triangles? What you're writing are a number of equivalent statements of Pythagoras' theorem. Why are they more or less intuitive? What is your question exactly? – Chrystomath Feb 17 '19 at 06:40
  • Maybe you're smart and you don't find the 7 stated assumptions about distance more intuitive than the Pythagoren theorem for that reason. Maybe you don't find it more intuitive because you no longer lack the experience of knowing what the distance formula is which you once lacked. Once when I was in grade 6, I finally after struggling to figure out how to prove that the length a diagonal of a unit square was $\sqrt{2}$ finally figured out a proof using property 7. I don't think I was ever given a homework assignment of deducing the distance formula before that time. It was just my own – Timothy Feb 18 '19 at 07:17
  • curiosity and then I figured out that proof on my own and am pretty sure I didn't see an already existing proof of the Pythagoren theorem before that. I guess now that you have the experience, you find the Pythagoren theorem as intuitive as the statement that the distance formula is not a hyperbolic metric on $\mathbb{R}^2$. Maybe the opposite is true and you don't have much intuition for the Pythagoren theorem or the 7 properties of distance, especially not property 5. If that's the case, it could also be because you were smart enough to realize that you can't assume a function satisfying – Timothy Feb 18 '19 at 07:24
  • even the first 5 properties exists let alone all 7. I think that some people with less experience maybe their brain unconsciously made the computations to show that a function satisfying the first 5 properties in fact does exist so they formed the strong intuition for those properties or their geometric equivalents and thought an intuitive proof of the distance formula similar to my deduction from the first 5 properties. Since not everybody naturally would have been careful enough to insist on defining distance and proving it's the unique function satisfying certain properties, and some people – Timothy Feb 18 '19 at 07:33
  • probably have an intuition of the visual equivalent to property 5 which replaces visual operations in the plane with their coordinate representations, that's probably why this question got a score of 5? Although it turns out not to be very consistent to assume those properties of distance, I think mathematicians started liking formalizing everything because in some situations, intuition didn't work and led to deriving a contradiction from the axiom of choice and the fact that volume satisfies the 8 properties which I also stated in this question. I also fixed up this question again just now. – Timothy Feb 18 '19 at 07:39
  • 1
    If you want to get useful answers it would help to first write a much, much more focused question. This one is far too wordy. I have one suggestion for doing this: separate the question about the existence of a distance function satisfying nice properties from all the stuff about measuring volumes, which is only tangentially related. Then if you like, post a separate question about volumes that mentions this one (if you think it is good motivation). – Stephen Feb 18 '19 at 18:16
  • @Stephen I'm not really sure the best way to write this question. I think mathematicians in the past had a strong intuition of wrong statements so they started liking to formalize proof or accept proofs that they can figure out how to formalize. I think some of them would still have the strong intuition of the 5 properties of distance I stated near the beginning and forget that the concept of distance too is something they would have wanted to formalize. The question of whether there is a function satisfying those 5 assumed properties of distance is similar to the question of whether there – Timothy Feb 19 '19 at 05:49
  • exists a function satisfying the 8 intuitive properties of volume which some people also have the strong intuition of but the existence of a function satisfying the intuitive properties of volume can't be proven to exist. I mentioned that to help them catch their mistake of automatically assuming a function satisfying those 5 intuitive properties of distance exists. There's also another such intuitive statement that people take for granted that I once realized I had not yet proven which is in fact provable. That's that for any natural numbers $x$ and $y$, if a set has $x$ members and it has – Timothy Feb 19 '19 at 05:56
  • $y$ members, then $x = y$, and for any set that has $x$ members for some natural number $x$, every subset of it has $y$ members for some natural number $y$. – Timothy Feb 19 '19 at 05:57
  • This question had a score of 4 and after I made the edit, its score changed to 2, now it would be kind of nice to know why it is now worse in its current form. – Timothy Feb 20 '19 at 07:55
  • I rolled it back now that it got a lower score after the change. – Timothy Feb 20 '19 at 07:57
  • I think that maybe it would be better if this question was only one question and asked only about the first 5 properties and did not discuss its use because people can figure that out and discussing it makes the question not as clear, and then after it gets answered, I ask another question about whether that function satisfies properties 6 and 7. I think asking only about the first 5 is better than asking about all 7 because uniqueness of function satisfying all 7 does not imply uniqueness of function satisfying the first 5. I don't want to change the question again until after I – Timothy Mar 23 '19 at 00:05
  • get some feedback. – Timothy Mar 23 '19 at 00:06

1 Answers1

1

The answer to both questions is yes. It can be shown that there is exactly one binary function from $\mathbb{R}^2$ to $\mathbb{R}$ satisfying the first 5 properties and that function also satisfies properties 6 and 7. The existence and uniqueness of a function satisfying the first 5 properties can be proven as follows. First I will show uniqueness of that function.

Suppose $d$ is a binary function from $\mathbb{R}^2$ to $\mathbb{R}^2$ satisfying the first 5 properties. Using property 1, once you determine for every ordered pair $(x, y)$ in $\mathbb{R}^2$, $d((0, 0), (x, y))$, there is an obvious way to determine what the whole function is. Now all I have to do is determine $d((0, 0), (x, y))$ for every ordered pair $(x, y)$ in $\mathbb{R}^2$. $\forall x \in \mathbb{R}\forall y \in \mathbb{R} (d((0, 0), (x, y)))^2 = d((0, 0), (x, y))d((0, 0), (x, y)) = d((0, 0), (x, y))d((0, 0), (x, -y)) = d((0, 0), (x^2 + y^2, 0)) = x^2 + y^2$. Since $\forall x \in \mathbb{R}\forall y \in \mathbb{R} (d((0, 0), (x, y)))^2 = x^2 + y^2$, then also $\forall x \in \mathbb{R}\forall y \in \mathbb{R} d((0, 0), (x, y)) = \sqrt{x^2 + y^2}$, which shows the uniqueness of a function satisfying the first 5 properties. That function can be shown to be $d((x, y), (z, w)) = \sqrt{(z - x)^2 + (w - y)^2}$.

Now I'll show that that function does satisfy those properties. It's trivial to show that it satisfies the first 4 properties. It can also be shown to satisfy property 5 as follows. $\forall x \in \mathbb{R}\forall y \in \mathbb{R}\forall z \in \mathbb{R}\forall w \in \mathbb{R} d((0, 0), (xz - yw, xw + yz)) = \sqrt{(xz - yw)^2 + (xw + yz)^2} = \sqrt{x^2z^2 - 2xyzw + y^2w^2 + x^2w^2 + 2xyzw + y^2z^2} = \sqrt{x^2z^2 + x^2w^2 + y^2z^2 + y^2w^2} = \sqrt{(x^2 + y^2)(z^2 + w^2)} = \sqrt{x^2 + y^2}\sqrt{z^2 + w^2} = d((0, 0), (x, y))d((0, 0), (z, w))$

Now that I've shown that there exists a unique function satisfying the first 5 properties, I will from now on define $d$ to mean that function. I will also define $d(x, y)$ as shorthand for $d((0, 0), (x, y))$.

The binary function $d$, not the unary function $d$ that I also defined, can also be shown to satisfy properties 6 and 7. I'll derive some properties of the unary function $d$ to make the proof more concise, but it's only a proof that the binary function $d$ satisfies properties 6 and 7, not a proof that the unary function $d$ satisfies those properties.

The binary function $d$ can be proven to satisfy property 6 as follows. Take any square. The displacement along one of its edges going in the counterclockwise direction has both components nonnegative. Let's call the first component of that displacement $x$ and its second component $y$. Using property 1 of the binary function $d$, we can show that the length of that edge going in that direction is $d(x, y)$. In Calculus, the area of that square can be defined as the definite integral from $-\infty$ to $\infty$ of the function that assigns to each real number $t$ the length of the intersection of the square and the line of points in $\mathbb{R}^2$ with $t$ as the first component.

enter image description here

This image shows that the area of the square is $(x - y)^2 + 2xy = x^2 - 2xy + y^2 + 2xy = x^2 + y^2 = (\sqrt{x^2 + y^2})^2 = (d(x, y))^2$. That proves that the binary function $d$ satisfies property 6.

The binary function $d$ can also be proven to satisfy property 7 as follows. $\frac{d}{dx}(\cos^2(x) + \sin^2(x)) = \frac{d}{dx}(\cos^2(x)) + \frac{d}{dx}(\sin^2(x)) = 2\cos(x)(-\sin(x)) + 2\sin(x)\cos(x) = 0$. That shows that the function $\cos^2(x) + \sin^2(x)$ is constant. Also $\cos^2(0) + \sin^2(0) = 1$. So $\forall x \in \mathbb{R}\cos^2(x) + \sin^2(x) = 1$. Therefore, $\forall x \in \mathbb{R}d(\cos(x), \sin(x)) = \sqrt{\cos^2(x) + \sin^2(x)} = \sqrt{1} = 1$. In conclusion, $d((x, y), (z, w)) = \sqrt{(z - x)^2 + (w - y)^2}$ thus is the unique binary function from $\mathbb{R}^2$ to $\mathbb{R}$ satisfying the first 5 properties and it also satisfies properties 6 and 7.

Image source: https://www.maa.org/press/periodicals/convergence/proportionality-in-similar-triangles-a-cross-cultural-comparison-the-student-module

Timothy
  • 793