35

Certain formulas I really enjoy looking at like the Euler-Maclaurin formula or the Leibniz integral rule. What's your favorite equation, formula, identity or inequality?

Kim Greene
  • 3,583
  • 10
  • 42
  • 41
  • There are numerous significant formula and laws from our mathematical legacy. It should be noticed while we are now enjoying them freely, there are still quite a lot of basic problems that we are not able to solve using the techniques we know. – Sunni Mar 04 '10 at 01:20
  • 2
    Voting to close. People are at the repeating-other-people's-answers stage now. – Qiaochu Yuan Aug 21 '10 at 18:23
  • 3
    The question has been closed as no longer relevant. It had a long and healthy life, but the large number of answers has become unwieldy. If the question had been asked more recently, it would probably have been closed sooner as being "overly broad". I encourage people who are interested in following up issues raised in the question or the answers with further questions. Please be specific! – Pete L. Clark Aug 22 '10 at 09:02
  • 2
    Sadly my favourite $\sum \frac{1}{n^2 +a^2} = \frac{\pi}{a} cth(\pi a)$ wasn't listed – Ostap Chervak May 01 '11 at 16:57
  • 1
    $$Rf_*R\hbox{Hom}(F,f^!G)\approx R\hbox{Hom}(Rf_!F,G)$$ – Steven Landsburg Oct 22 '16 at 22:01
  • 1
    Mine is Poisson formula which can take the form $\int_H f = \int_{H^{\perp}} \hat f$. – Watson Dec 21 '19 at 09:36
  • 1
    I don't understand what's to be gained by deleting this post (and its 67 answers). – Gerry Myerson Dec 22 '22 at 17:02

62 Answers62

83

Stokes' Theorem $$\int_M\mathrm{d}\omega=\oint_{\partial M}\omega.$$

74

Trivial as this is, it has amazed me for decades:

$(1+2+3+\cdots+n)^2=1^3+2^3+3^3+\cdots+n^3.$

Denis Serre
  • 51,599
  • 1
    I wouldn't call it trivial. There is also a nice combinatorial proof for it. – Victor Protsak Jun 03 '10 at 14:12
  • 15
    I am a bit late in seeing this post, but I completely agree with you, Yaakov. The equality is a bit related to the following pattern which I discovered as a child but continues to amaze me to this day: $1=1^3$; $3+5=2^3$; $7+9+11=3^3$; $13+15+17+19=4^3$;... Many mathematicians know that the sum of the first n odd numbers is n2, but I think very few are aware of this trivial yet incredible pattern. I actually wrote a little post about this on a math blog (the Everything Seminar): – Peter Luthy Nov 03 '10 at 05:34
  • oops, here is the link: http://cornellmath.wordpress.com/2008/02/15/odd-sums-of-consecutive-odds/ – Peter Luthy Nov 03 '10 at 05:34
  • Also see http://mathoverflow.net/questions/67117/relations-between-sums-of-powers and in particular Vladimir Dotsenko's answer, where other similar relations are listed, including $2P_3^2=P_7+P_5$. – Yaakov Baruch Jun 10 '11 at 12:13
  • Actually, I asked a question about this formula (http://mathoverflow.net/questions/67117). It turns out that it is only the first one in an infinite list. Thus it is not so beautiful, at least not by itself. – Denis Serre Dec 17 '11 at 11:18
  • 1
    @DenisSerre, it is an interesting position that belonging to an infinite family makes a formula not beautiful …. – LSpice Feb 13 '20 at 11:19
54

There are many, but here is one.

$d^2=0$

MBN
  • 459
  • 7
  • 11
53

$$ \frac{24}{7\sqrt{7}} \int_{\pi/3}^{\pi/2} \log \left| \frac{\tan t+\sqrt{7}}{\tan t-\sqrt{7}}\right| dt\\ = \sum_{n\geq 1} \left(\frac n7\right)\frac{1}{n^2}, $$ where $\left(\frac n7\right)$ denotes the Legendre symbol. Not really my favorite identity, but it has the interesting feature that it is a conjecture! [Update: the conjecture was proved in 2010, https://arxiv.org/abs/1005.0414.] It is a rare example of a conjectured explicit identity between real numbers that can be checked to arbitrary accuracy. This identity has been verified to over 20,000 decimal places. See J. M. Borwein and D. H. Bailey, Mathematics by Experiment: Plausible Reasoning in the 21st Century, A K Peters, Natick, MA, 2004 (pages 90-91).

  • @Richard: Could you tell me the name of this conjecture. – C.S. Jun 20 '12 at 08:01
  • 1
    @Chandrasekhar: I don't know whether it has a name. – Richard Stanley Jun 20 '12 at 20:55
  • 2
    It may be formulated with integrals only, and quite similar: \begin{align} 7\int_0^1 \log x\cdot \frac{1+x-x^2+x^3-x^4-x^5}{1-x^7}dx=\ 12 \int_{\frac{\sqrt{21}-5}2}^1 \frac{\log |x|}{2+3x+2x^2}dx \end{align} – Fedor Petrov Mar 09 '15 at 00:07
  • 16
    As mentioned in this question, a proof of this identity can be found in Section 5 of https://arxiv.org/abs/1005.0414 – j.c. May 07 '19 at 19:19
  • 1
    For anyone else who was confused by the notation, the notation $(\frac{n}{7})$ is something called a Legendre symbol. It's not $n/7$ in parens. –  May 08 '19 at 22:50
  • 1
    The Legendre-symbol notation is standard in number theory, at least enough that LaTeX has the fancy command \genfrac devoted to producing it and its variants; e.g., $\genfrac(){}{}n 7$ \genfrac(){}{}n 7. – LSpice May 25 '19 at 23:44
47

There's lots to choose from. Riemann-Roch and various other formulas from cohomology are pretty neat. But I think I'll go with

$$\sum\limits_{n=1}^{\infty} n^{-s} = \prod\limits_{p \text{ prime}} \left( 1 - p^{-s}\right)^{-1}$$

George Lowther
  • 16,787
  • 1
  • 63
  • 96
46

Mine is definitely $$1+\frac{1}{4}+\frac{1}{9}+\cdots+\frac{1}{n^2}+\cdots=\frac{\pi^2}{6},$$ an amazing relation between integers and pi.

Konrad Swanepoel
  • 3,481
  • 2
  • 24
  • 23
  • 4
    I honestly find the infinite product expression of this formula to be more intriguing - this now relates pi to just the primes. – Nick Salter Dec 18 '09 at 18:47
  • pi also appears in other values of $\zeta(2n)$, for positive integers $n$. – Regenbogen Mar 04 '10 at 18:05
  • 2
    @ Regenbogen: It appears in ALL values of $\zeta(2n)$. – Max Muller Jul 08 '10 at 15:32
  • 6
    This identity is the subject of one of my favourite proofs: For $0 < x < \pi/2$ we have $0 < \sin x < x < \tan x$, thus $1/\sin^2 x -1 < 1/x^2 < 1/\sin^2 x$. Split the interval $(0,\pi/2)$ into $2^n$ equal parts, and sum the inequality over the interior grid points $x_k=(k/2^n)(\pi/2)$, $k=1,\ldots,2^n-1$. This gives $S_n - (2^n-1) < (4^{n+1}/\pi^2) \sum_{k=1}^{2^n-1} k^{-2} < S_n$, where $S_n=\sum_k 1/\sin^2 x_k$ satisfies $S_1=2$ and $S_n = 2+4 S_{n-1}$ (since $1/\sin^2 x+1/\sin^2(\pi/2-x) = 4/\sin^2 2x$), so that $S_n=2(4^n-1)/3$. Multiply by $\pi^2/4^{n+1}$ and let $n\to\infty$. Voilà! – Hans Lundmark Jul 15 '10 at 14:08
  • I should also mention that variants of the proof above can be found in Aigner & Ziegler's "Proofs from the book" and in a paper by Josef Hofbauer (Amer. Math. Monthly, February 2002). – Hans Lundmark Jul 15 '10 at 14:10
42

$e^{\pi i} + 1 = 0$

Gabe Cunningham
  • 1,861
  • 6
  • 26
  • 31
  • 30
    I never liked writing it in the form e^(i pi) + 1 = 0, it's not a way I'd ever write anything. I think it looks a lot nicer when written e^(i pi) = -1. – Sam Derbyshire Oct 28 '09 at 22:45
  • 23
    More interesting and useful (and less mysterious) is: exp(i t) = cos(t) + i sin(t). – Gerald Edgar Oct 29 '09 at 14:49
  • 11
    @Gerald: I certainly agree. But I think this particular equation is so pretty I once had it henna tattoo-ed on my hand. @Sam: It's just a matter of eye, beholder etc. I don't like minus signs, but do like 0 on the RHS. – Sonia Balagopalan Oct 29 '09 at 15:29
  • 13
    I think people ascribe to this formula excessive mystery. The mystery disappears if one replaces the usual exponential with the matrix exponential on M_2(R) and then this is just the statement that the only trajectory of a particle whose velocity is always perpendicular to its displacement (and in the same proportion) is a circle. – Qiaochu Yuan Dec 08 '09 at 18:04
  • 42
    I think the people who ascribe to this formula excessive mystery might not find matrix exponentials particularly less mysterious. – Cam McLeman Mar 04 '10 at 18:16
  • 3
    There's a great story that Max Zorn once put this on the blackboard in his advanced calculus class as the final exam.No questions,just put this equation on the board. That's how you seperate the students who DO math from those that THINK about it. I'd love to try that someday. – The Mathemagician Jun 02 '10 at 19:14
  • 3
    I agree with Gerald and Qiaochu that the mystery in the formula $e^{i\pi}=-1$ can (and for mathematics students should) be made to disappear. Nevertheless, the brevity of the formula and the surprise factor (when one first encounters it) make it one of my favorites. (It would be my favorite if it weren't already so many other people's favorite.) – Andreas Blass Aug 20 '10 at 18:01
  • I expect that Euler voted this one! – Denis Serre Dec 17 '11 at 11:15
  • 1
    @SamDerbyshire IMO it's more elegant with the additive and multiplicative identities than with -1, because the former are more universal. – Jeff Apr 19 '14 at 02:02
  • http://sites.math.rutgers.edu/~zeilberg/mamarim/mamarimPDF/hersh90.pdf – Joseph Van Name Dec 18 '17 at 04:24
  • Martin Davis also likes this one, and set up his personal email address at a site named eipye. –  Dec 22 '22 at 14:03
40

$$1+2+3+4+5+\cdots = -\frac1{12}\,,$$ once suitably regularised of course :-)

Dan Piponi
  • 8,086
  • 9
    Ramanujan got rejected by many famous mathematicians (looking for a scholarship outside of India) because they did not understand this.. – BlueRaja Jul 15 '10 at 05:26
  • @BlueRaja What do you mean by that? Do you mean that his work, without this regularization, was insufficient for a scholarship? – Acccumulation May 07 '19 at 21:35
  • @Acccumulation: He sent his results to multiple professors before Hardy, with a universally negative response. The response from MHM Hill about this very equation: "[Ramanujan] does not understand the precautions which have to be taken in dealing with divergent series, otherwise he could not have obtained the erroneous results you send me" – BlueRaja May 26 '20 at 22:46
39

$$\frac{1}{1-z} = (1+z)(1+z^2)(1+z^4)(1+z^8)...$$

Both sides as formal power series work out to $1 + z + z^2 + z^3 + ...$, where all the coefficients are 1. This is an analytic version of the fact that every positive integer can be written in exactly one way as a sum of distinct powers of two, i. e. that binary expansions are unique.

Michael Lugo
  • 13,858
  • 4
    That's simple, but quite neat too. Haven't thought about that expansion before. Does it have any applications? – George Lowther Oct 29 '09 at 23:25
  • 2
    Well, it says binary expansions are unique, which is kind of a nice fact if you want to make computers that depend on that. As for applications within mathematics itself, I don't really know of any. – Michael Lugo Oct 30 '09 at 00:15
  • 22
    multiplying the RHS by $(1-z)$ starts an impressive chain reaction – Pietro Majer May 25 '11 at 06:33
  • @MichaelLugo Sorry, undergrad here. Could you please explain how this says that binary expansions are unique? – Ovi May 07 '19 at 22:51
  • @Ovi The coefficient of $z^n$ in the Taylor series of $\frac1{1-z}$ counts how many subsets of the powers of $2$ sum up to $n$. Picking a term from each factor in Lugo's product picks out a subset of the powers of $2$ – wlad May 08 '19 at 12:10
37

I'm currently obsessed with the identity $\det (\mathbf{I} - \mathbf{A}t)^{-1} = \exp \text{tr } \log (\mathbf{I} - \mathbf{A}t)^{-1}$. It's straightforward to prove algebraically, but its combinatorial meaning is very interesting.

Qiaochu Yuan
  • 114,941
  • So what is its combinatorial meaning, anyway? – Darsh Ranjan Oct 29 '09 at 04:17
  • 8
    If A is the adjacency matrix of a finite graph G, then the coefficient of t^k counts the number of non-negative integer linear combination of aperiodic closed walks on G (without a distinguished vertex) with a total of k vertices. This is an equivalent to an Euler product for the RHS which is again straightforward to prove algebraically and very interesting combinatorially. – Qiaochu Yuan Oct 29 '09 at 04:24
  • 4
    That's awesome! – Sonia Balagopalan Oct 29 '09 at 10:47
  • 5
    I should also note that as a special case of the Euler product one gets the cyclotomic identity: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclotomic_identity – Qiaochu Yuan Oct 29 '09 at 14:40
  • Funny. I got obsessed with that one for a while. I guess you know it's connected with my answer to this question about 1+2+3+...=-1/12 because you combine both when you compute regularised determinants of Laplacians. – Dan Piponi May 14 '10 at 21:05
  • You might be interested in this answer: http://math.stackexchange.com/a/779515/37122 – Benjamin Dickman Jun 20 '14 at 07:01
35

$V - E + F = 2$

Euler's characteristic for connected planar graphs.

33

$196884 = 196883 + 1$

muad
  • 1,402
  • 2
    Can you explain what this is about? – M. Winter Dec 26 '18 at 23:06
  • 6
    This apparently references Monstrous Moonshine conjectures, which started with an observation that the coefficient $c_1=196884$ of $q$ in the $q$-expansion of the modular invariant $j(\tau)$ is the sum $1+196883$ of the dimensions of two smallest irreducible representations of the largest sporadic finite simple group $M$, known as the Monster. – Victor Protsak May 08 '19 at 14:22
30

For a triangle with angles a, b, c $$\tan a + \tan b + \tan c = (\tan a) (\tan b) (\tan c)$$

Dan
  • 1
  • 2
    It is very interesting. So if inverse is also true we have interesting algebraic structure connected to set of triangles with equivalence relation given by similarity of triangles. Very interesting indeed! – kakaz Feb 09 '10 at 08:44
24

Given a square matrix $M \in SO_n$ decomposed as illustrated with square blocks $A,D$ and rectangular blocks $B,C,$

$$M = \left( \begin{array}{cc} A & B \\\ C & D \end{array} \right) ,$$

then $\det A = \det D.$

What this says is that, in Riemannian geometry with an orientable manifold, the Hodge star operator is an isometry, a fact that has relevance for Poincare duality.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hodge_duality

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poincar%C3%A9_duality

But the proof is a single line:

$$ \left( \begin{array}{cc} A & B \\\ 0 & I \end{array} \right) \left( \begin{array}{cc} A^t & C^t \\\ B^t & D^t \end{array} \right) = \left( \begin{array}{cc} I & 0 \\\ B^t & D^t \end{array} \right). $$

Will Jagy
  • 25,349
  • Ooh... that's a cute proof. – Willie Wong Apr 25 '10 at 21:34
  • I can't remember the guy's name who found it, he was at UCSD and did lots of stuff with matrices. He was one of many people I told this little fact, nobody had ever heard of it, although it pops out if you go through the material on the Hodge star in Frank Warner's book, "Foundations of Differentiable Manifolds and Lie Groups." I think later editions have a different title. – Will Jagy Apr 27 '10 at 02:28
20

I always thought this one was really funny: $1 = 0!$

  • Yeah, so do I. It is also convention that zero product is $1$. – Sunni Mar 04 '10 at 01:15
  • 3
    True, but that's not what's going on here. One can define 0! by extending the rule n!=n*(n-1)! with n=1, or by computing that \Gamma(1) in its integral form is indeed 1. And it's only very mildly a convention that we choose \Gamma as the interpolating function for the factorial function. – Cam McLeman Mar 04 '10 at 18:23
  • 6
    Or, 0! is the number of bijective maps on a set with 0 elements, since the empty set is the only such map. – Jonas Meyer Mar 19 '10 at 03:52
  • 6
    Ha! Very funny!

    Reminded me of when one of my professors ended a proof with the statement to the effect that the Q is an element in set D. (get it?)

    – Burhan May 21 '10 at 18:25
  • At first I thought you said $0=1$ with an exclamation point for emphasis. Maybe it was your favorite since it is a prototype of a false statement ;) – David Corwin Jul 15 '10 at 10:39
19

It's too hard to pick just one formula, so here's another: the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality:

||x|| ||y|| >= |(x.y)|, with equality iff x&y are parallel.

Simple, yet incredibly useful. It has many nice generalizations (like Holder's inequality), but here's a cute generalization to three vectors in a real inner product space:

||x||2 ||y||2 ||z||2 + 2(x.y)(y.z)(z.x) >= ||x||2(y.z)2 + ||y||2(z.x)2 + ||z||2(x.y)2, with equality iff one of x,y,z is in the span of the others.

There are corresponding inequalities for 4 vectors, 5 vectors, etc., but they get unwieldy after this one. All of the inequalities, including Cauchy-Schwarz, are actually just generalizations of the 1-dimensional inequality:

||x|| >= 0, with equality iff x = 0,

or rather, instantiations of it in the 2nd, 3rd, etc. exterior powers of the vector space.

Darsh Ranjan
  • 5,932
18

I think that Weyl's character formula is pretty awesome! It's a generating function for the dimensions of the weight spaces in a finite dimensional irreducible highest weight module of a semisimple Lie algebra.

$$\operatorname{ch}(V)=\frac{\sum_{w\in W}(-1)^{\ell(w)}w\left(e^{\lambda+\rho}\right)}{e^\rho\prod_{\alpha>0}\left(1-e^{-\alpha}\right)}$$

Sammy Black
  • 1,746
  • 11
  • 22
16

Gauss-Bonnet, even though I am not a geometer.

Carsten S
  • 376
15

The formula $\displaystyle \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} \frac{\cos(x)}{x^2+1} dx = \frac{\pi}{e}$. It is astounding in that we can retrieve $e$ from a formula involving the cosine. It is not surprising if we know the formula $\cos(x)=\frac{e^{ix}+e^{-ix}}{2}$, yet this integral is of a purely real-valued function. It shows how complex analysis actually underlies even the real numbers.

David Corwin
  • 15,078
  • This is tantalizingly close to giving a variant of $e$ as a period. –  May 07 '19 at 15:31
15

It may be trivial, but I've always found

$\sqrt{\pi}=\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}e^{-x^{2}}dx$

to be particularly beautiful.

  • 5
    Once one decides that the "right" definition of $n!$ when $n$ isn't a natural number is $\Gamma(n+1)$, this formula becomes equivalent to one of my favorites: $(-{\frac{1}{2}})!=\sqrt{\pi}$. – Andreas Blass Aug 21 '10 at 18:55
15

It has to be the ergodic theorem, $$\frac{1}{n}\sum_{k=0}^{n-1}f(T^kx) \to \int f\:d\mu,\;\;\mu\text{-a.e.}\;x,$$ the central principle which holds together pretty much my entire research existence.

Ian Morris
  • 6,176
15

$2^n>n $

Jonas Meyer
  • 7,279
11

Euclid, Elements, Book1 Prop 47:

Ἐν τοῖς ὀρθογωνίοις τριγώνοις τὸ ἀπὸ τῆς τὴν ὀρθὴν γωνίαν ὑποτεινούσης πλευρᾶς τετράγωνον ἴσον ἐστὶ τοῖς ἀπὸ τῶν τὴν ὀρθὴν γωνίαν περιεχουσῶν πλευρῶν τετραγώνοις.

That is,

In right-angled triangles the square on the side subtending the right angle is equal to the squares on the sides containing the right angle.

Proportional
  • 131
  • 1
  • 6
11

Riemann-Roch, and its generalizations:

Hirzebruch-Riemann-Roch

Grothendieck-Hirzebruch-Riemann-Roch

Atiyah-Singer (which is also a generalization of Gauss-Bonnet)

Is it cheating to put all of these in a single answer? :-)

Kevin H. Lin
  • 20,738
11

$\left(\frac{p}{q}\right) \left(\frac{q}{p}\right) = (-1)^{\frac{p-1}{2} \frac{q-1}{2}}$.

10

My favorite is the Koike-Norton-Zagier product identity for the j-function (which classifies complex elliptic curves):

j(p) - j(q) = p-1 \prodm>0,n>-1 (1-pmqn)c(mn),

where j(q)-744 = \sumn >-2 c(n) qn = q-1 + 196884q + 21493760q2 + ... The left side is a difference of power series pure in p and q, so all of the mixed terms on the right cancel out. This yields infinitely many identities relating the coefficients of j.

It is also the Weyl denominator formula for the monster Lie algebra.

S. Carnahan
  • 45,116
10

$${\mathbb E}[X+Y]={\mathbb E}[X]+{\mathbb E}[Y]$$ for any two random varibles $X$ and $Y$.

Denis Serre
  • 51,599
Jonathan Kariv
  • 436
  • 3
  • 10
9

$ D_A\star F = 0 $

Yang-Mills

9

For X a based smooth manifold, the category of finite covers over X is equivalent to the category of actions of the fundamental group of X on based finite sets:

                       \pi-sets   ===     et/X

The same statement for number fields essentially describes the Galois theory. Now the idea that those should be somehow unified was one of the reasons in the development of abstract schemes, a very fruitful topic that is studied in the amazing area of mathematics called the abstract algebraic geometry. Also, note that "actions on sets" is very close to "representations on vector spaces" and this moves us in the direction of representation theory.

Now you see, this simple line actually somehow relates number theory and representation theory. How exactly? Well, if I knew, I would write about that, but I'm just starting to learn about those things.

(Of course, one of the specific relations hinted here should be the Langlands conjectures, since we're so close to having L-functions and representations here!)

  • This is a pretty fact, but I would say that -- despite the way it is written! -- it is not an "equation, formula, identity or inequality". Rather it is a Galois correspondence, or an equivalence of categories. (Brief justification: it's not asserting that any two particular objects are equal. The content is more functorial than that.) – Pete L. Clark Aug 22 '10 at 09:06
9

$\prod_{n=1}^{\infty} (1-x^n) = \sum_{k=-\infty}^{\infty} (-1)^k x^{k(3k-1)/2}$

Bo Peng
  • 1,505
6

The Euler-Lagrange equations, $$\frac{\partial L}{\partial q_j} = \frac{d}{dt}\frac{\partial L}{\partial \dot{q}_j}$$

6

The Pythagorean Theorem for Right-Corner Tetrahedra[*]:

Euclidean: $A^2 + B^2 + C^2 = D^2$

Hyperbolic: $\cos\frac{A}{2} \cos\frac{B}{2} \cos\frac{C}{2} \; - \; \sin\frac{A}{2} \sin\frac{B}{2} \sin\frac{C}{2} = \cos\frac{D}{2}$

Spherical: $\cos\frac{A}{2} \cos\frac{B}{2} \cos\frac{C}{2} \; + \; \sin\frac{A}{2} \sin\frac{B}{2} \sin\frac{C}{2} = \cos\frac{D}{2}$

where $A$, $B$, $C$ are the areas of the "leg-faces" and $D$ is the area of the "hypotenuse-face".

For right-corner simplices in higher Euclidean dimensions, we have that the sum of the squares of the content of leg-simplices equals the square of the content of the hypotenuse-simplex. (I don't happen to know the non-Euclidean counterparts of this generalization. Perhaps this makes for a good MO question!)

As generalizations of the Pythagorean Theorem for Triangles, I always found these (Euclidean) results to be more satisfying than the diagonal-of-a-box/distance formulas: instead of dealing only with segments, we have that, as the dimension of the ambient space goes up, so does the dimension of the objects involved in the relations.

[*] Edges meeting at the "right corner" are mutually orthogonal.

Blue
  • 1,198
  • Yes, this one deserves to be better known. I like the Euclidean one since it looks so bizarre at first: "Area squared, what the heck is that?!?". :) – Hans Lundmark Jul 15 '10 at 20:40
  • 1
    Even better: the higher-dimensional Pythagorean ones are all a corollary of the Cauchy-Binet formula (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cauchy%E2%80%93Binet_formula), which has a combinatorial proof. – Qiaochu Yuan Jul 29 '10 at 18:04
6

Addendum to $e^{i \pi}$

Benjamin Peirce apparently liked this mathematical synonym for the additive inverse of $1$ so much that he introduced three special symbols for $e, i, \pi$ — ones that enable $e^{i \pi}$ to be written in a single cursive ligature, like so:

Benjamin Peirce's script for e^(i pi)

Benjamin Peirce, LAA, § 15, p. 5.

5

$\pi = 2 \times 1/\sqrt(1/2) \times 1/\sqrt((1+\sqrt(1/2))/2) \times 1/\sqrt((1+\sqrt((1+\sqrt(1/2))/2))/2) \times \ldots $

Tom Smith
  • 1,180
Darsh Ranjan
  • 5,932
5

Cauchy integral formula $$ f(z)=\frac{1}{2\pi i}\int_{\gamma}\frac{f(w)}{w-z} dw $$

Leandro
  • 2,044
5

My favorite equation is

$$\frac{16}{64} = \frac{1}{4}.$$

What makes this equation interesting is that canceling the $6$'s yields the correct answer. I realized this in, perhaps, third grade. This was the great rebellion of my youth. Sometime later I generalized this to finding solutions to

$$\frac{pa +b}{pb + c} = \frac{a}{c}.$$

where $p$ is an integer greater than $1$. We require that $a$, $b$, and $c$ are integers between $1$ and $p - 1$, inclusive. Say a solution is trivial if $a = b = c$. Then $p$ is prime if and only if all solutions are trivial. On can also prove that if $p$ is an even integer greater than $2$ then $p - 1$ is prime if and only if every nontrivial solution $(a,b,c)$ has $b = p - 1$.

The key to these results is that if $(a, b, c)$ is a nontrivial solution then the greatest common divisor of $c$ and $p$ is greater than $1$ and the greatest common divisor of $b$ and $p - 1$ is also greater than $1$.

Two other interesting facts are (i) if $(a, b, c)$ is a nontrivial solution then $2a \leq c < b$ and (2) the number of nontrivial solutions is odd if and only if $p$ is the square of an even integer. To prove the latter item it is useful to note that if $(a, b, c)$ is a nontrivial solution then so is $(b - c, b, b - a)$.

For what it is worth I call this demented division.

5

$(A-\lambda _1) (A-\lambda _2) \ldots = 0$, the Cayley-Hamilton theorem.

Vamsi
  • 3,323
4

Bayes equations: $${\mathbb P}(A|B) = {\mathbb P}(A∩B)/{\mathbb P}(B).$$ It is the basis of conditional probability.

Denis Serre
  • 51,599
Lucas K.
  • 1,659
  • 1
  • 13
  • 24
4

The Spectral theorem for normal operators on a Hilbert space:

$T = \int_{\sigma (T)} \lambda dP(\lambda)$

where $\sigma (T)$ is the spectrum of $T$ and $P$ is a regular projection-valued measure supported on $\sigma (T)$.

Mark
  • 4,804
4

$\sin^2 A + \cos^2 A = 1$

muad
  • 1,402
4

$$Var[X+Y]=Var[X]+Var[Y]$$ for any two independent random variables $X$ and $Y$, which is the statistics equivalent of the Pythagorean Theorem.

Denis Serre
  • 51,599
4

Pick's theorem $A = I + \frac 1 2 B - 1$, where $A$, $I$, and $B$ are the area, number of interior integer points, and number of boundary integer points, respectively, of a polygon with vertices on the integer lattice. Picks identity is fascinating because it computes a continuous quantity completely discretely. (Of course, this is not quite correct, since we have quite a discrete requirement about the vertices of the polygon.) Also, the "1" is not an accident, but the Euler characteristic of the polygon (and so there are various natural extensions of Pick's theorem).

  • That reminds me, I remember seeing a book with title something like "Computing the continuous discretely". I can't remember the authors; do you know them by any chance? :-) – Robin Chapman Aug 21 '10 at 06:52
  • 1
    My favorite way to think of $I+{\frac{1}{2}}B-1$ is as the number of lattice points in the polygon, with the "reasonable" convention for points on the boundary: A point in the interior of an edge is half in the polygon, and a vertex with interior angle $\alpha$ is $\alpha/(2\pi)$ in the polygon. – Andreas Blass Aug 21 '10 at 18:52
  • @ Robin: I'm not responsible for the title... :) But there is certainly a connection here. – matthias beck Aug 22 '10 at 06:05
4

One that I just learned recently is $$ (1 + q + q^3 + q^6 + q^{10} + q^{15} + \cdots)^4 = \sum_{k=0}^\infty \sigma(2k+1)q^k $$ which states that the number of ways of writing an integer $k$ as a sum of exactly 4 triangular numbers (paying attention to ordering) is equal to the sum of divisors of $2k+1$.

If that isn't cool and surprising, I don't know what is.

Simon Rose
  • 6,250
4

The Newton iteration for finding the inverse, X, of a matrix A:

Xi+1 = 2 * Xi - Xi * A * Xi

Completely impractical and yet so beautiful. The first time I saw a Newton iteration working I thought it was "magical".

3

Well, of course my favorite is Stokes theorem (it used to be the background of my mobile in the old days where you still manually designed monochromatic backgrounds pixel by pixel), but that is already suggested. And so are many others. So I'll go for Kontsevich formula for the number $N_d$ of rational curves through $3d-1$ generic points in the plane:

$N_d + \sum_{\stackrel{d_A, d_B \geq 1}{d_A + d_B = d}} \binom{3d - 4}{3 d_A - 1} N_{d_A} N_{d_B} d_A^3 d_B = \sum_{\stackrel{d_A, d_B \geq 1}{d_A + d_B = d}} \binom{3d - 4}{3 d_A - 2} N_{d_A} N_{d_B} d_A^2 d_B^2$

Although I admit this looks ugly until you see the proof. Then it becomes so neat!

Andrea Ferretti
  • 14,454
  • 13
  • 78
  • 111
3

I think this fits the original question's request for something nice-looking: $\binom{2n}{n}=(-4)^n\binom{-1/2}{n}$

Harry Altman
  • 2,575
  • Is there good reference? – Turbo Dec 23 '14 at 11:37
  • It's a simple verification. If you really think you need to cite it, you can probably find a reference in some combinatorics book somewhere, it's one of those things that comes up now and again... – Harry Altman Dec 23 '14 at 18:45
  • I have not been introduced to negative binomials formally. This seems fairly advanced. Does it have algebraic, arithmetic, combinatorial or geometric meaning? Do you have a reference that could say something substantial about this interesting formulation? – Turbo Dec 23 '14 at 20:36
3

I have a soft spot for Heine's formula from the theory of orthogonal polynomials (since the proof is such a pretty calculation):

If $\mu$ is a measure with finite moments $\beta_k=\int x^k d\mu(x)$, then

$$\det(\beta_{i+j})_{i,j=0,\ldots,k-1} = \frac{1}{k!} \int \cdots \int \Delta(x_1,\ldots,x_k)^2 d\mu(x_1) \cdots d\mu(x_k)$$

where $\Delta$ is the Vandermonde determinant.

3

I'm a fan of $\Omega SU \simeq BU$.

Jeff Strom
  • 12,468
2

The isogeny theorem: $$\mathrm{Hom}_K(A,A') = \mathrm{Hom}_{G_K}(T_\ell(A),T_\ell(A')).$$

Denis Serre
  • 51,599
2

Lately, I really like the Greenlees-May duality: $RHom_A(R\Gamma_{\mathfrak{a}}M,N) \cong RHom_A(M,L\Lambda_{\mathfrak{a}}N)$ which holds for any pair of complexes over a noetherian ring.

the L
  • 1,204
2

Ky Fan's inequality seems rather beautiful. The most beautiful proof can be found here

Jovanović, Milan V.; Pogány, Tibor K.; Sándor, József, Notes on certain inequalities by Hölder, Lewent and Ky Fan, J. Math. Inequal. 1, No. 1, 53-55 (2007). ZBL1147.26011, MR2347705.

Sunni
  • 1,858
2

The Gauss Formula from Riemannian geometry:

$\overline{\nabla}_XY = \nabla_XY + \text{II}(X,Y)$

It may just be a decomposition into tangential and normal parts, but I find it very aesthetically pleasing. (It's also not completely immediate that the tangential part of the ambient connection should actually be the intrinsic connection.)

2

How about $\displaystyle \sigma_7(n)=\sigma_3(n)+120\sum_{k=1}^{n-1} \sigma_3(k) \sigma_3(n-k)$? This is an utterly shocking result, and the only known proof uses complex analysis.

David Corwin
  • 15,078
  • This result drops out easily from a couple of identities for Ramanujan's tau function that I published in my 1993 thesis: \tau(n) = 60 \sum_{k=0}^n (n-3k)(2n-3k)s_3(k)s_3(n-k) and \tau(n)=n^2s_7(n) – 540 \sum_{k=1}^{n-1} k(n-k)s_3(k)s_3(n-k), where s_3(0)=1/240 (for s read \sigma). What proof are you referring to? Thanks. – Derek Jennings Aug 11 '10 at 18:04
  • I just found the result you gave on wikipedia and it is derived using Eisenstein series, which is how I obtained my identities for the tau function, so I believe my proof of this result is pretty similar to what you had in mind. – Derek Jennings Aug 11 '10 at 18:19
  • It follows from the fact that $E_4^2 = E_8$, which follows from the dimension formulas for spaces of modular forms of a given weight. – David Corwin Aug 11 '10 at 23:04
  • 2
    No, see Skoruppa, Nils-Peter, A quick combinatorial proof of Eisenstein series identities., J. Number Theory 43 (1993), no. 1, 68--73 for a non-analytic proof. – Robin Chapman Aug 21 '10 at 07:47
2

The braid relation is probably my favorite equation, algebraically capturing the Reidemeister III move as $x y x = y x y$. Although to a younger person, I still find that suggesting that 5 is not prime is reliably charming revelation: $5 = (2 + i)(2 - i)$.

Robert Bell
  • 1,371
2

There are many beautiful equations above, so I'll be a bit different and add something nonsensical. Namely

$$\langle f\rangle = \frac{\int_\ast f(\phi)e^{\frac{\mathrm{i}}{\hbar}\int_M\mathcal{L}(\phi)}\mathcal{D}\phi}{\int_\ast e^{\frac{\mathrm{i}}{\hbar}\int_M\mathcal{L}(\phi)}\mathcal{D}\phi}.$$

Just insert your favourite spacetime manifold $M$ and the classical Lagrangian $\mathcal{L}$ of your choice, and you get to learn the expectation value of any physical observable $f$... as soon as you figure out what the hell $\ast$ and $\mathcal{D}\phi$ are, that is.

gspr
  • 465
1

$\sum_{i=1}^m \sum_{j=1}^n a_{ij} = \sum_{j=1}^n \sum_{i=1}^m a_{ij}$

hypercube
  • 475
  • 7
  • 13
1

$$e=\lim_{n\to\infty}\sqrt[p_n]{\prod_{k=1}^np_n}$$ as seen at Gaussianos

$(\prod_{k=1}^np_n=p_n$# which is the primorial of the nth prime number $p_n)$

0

I'm surprised that nobody said

$e=mc^2$

Luc M
  • 101
0

I learned Quantum Mechanics and Linear Algebra in tandem, so Schrodinger's linear time-independent equation has always had a special place in my heart. It shows that eigenvalues and eigenvectors are fundamental to our description of atomic physics. Also treating observables as operators was a great conceptual revolution.

$H\psi=E\psi$

Justin Curry
  • 2,684
  • I first saw this equation in the second semester of physical chemistry over a decade ago.That course got me considering a change of career from biochemistry to mathematics. – The Mathemagician Jun 02 '10 at 19:16
0

With the stuff I've seen in the literature of sequence transformations, I've started to love the formulae for Aitken's Δ² process:

$S_n^{\prime}=S_{n+1}-\frac{(\Delta S_n)^2}{\Delta^2 S_n}$

and its generalization the Wynn ε algorithm:

$\varepsilon_{k+1}^{(n)}=\varepsilon_{k-1}^{(n+1)}+\frac1{\varepsilon_{k}^{(n+1)}-\varepsilon_{k}^{(n)}}$

for the latter one especially because it is nicely represented as a lozenge diagram:

Wynn epsilon

0

I like Riemann-Roch the most!!!

Yujia Qiu
  • 249
0

polynomially convex hull of K = plurisubharmonic hull of K , where K is compact subset of C^n. For n>1, the equality is very interesting.

sushil
  • 1