96

Imagine your-self in front of a class with very good undergraduates who plan to do mathematics (professionally) in the future. You have 30 minutes after that you do not see these students again. You need to present a theorem which will be 100% useful for them.

What would you do?

One theorem per answer please. Try to be realistic.

For example: 30 min is more than enough to introduce metric spaces, prove existence of partition of unity, and explain how it can be used later.

P.S. Many of you criticized the vague formulation of the question. I agree. I was trying to make it short --- I do not read the questions if they are longer than half a page. Still I think it is a good approximation to what I really wanted to ask. Here is an other formulation of the same question, but it might be even more vague.

Before I liked jewelry-type theorems; those I can put in my pocket and look at it when I want to. Now I like tool-type theorems; those which can be used to dig a hole or build a wall. It turns out that there are jewelry-type and tool-type theorems at the same time. I know a few and I want to know more.

Ira Gessel
  • 16,246
  • 4
    You need to be more specific. What majors are these students? – Daniel Parry Apr 03 '11 at 18:05
  • 2
    @Daniel; I add "(professionally)" for you. – Anton Petrunin Apr 03 '11 at 18:22
  • 9
    How many years of undergraduate education do those students have? What can we assume that they know? (It is a big difference between one who's in the second half of her third year and one that just started two months ago.) – Willie Wong Apr 03 '11 at 18:28
  • (Mostly asking because you said Qiaochu's answer is too advanced... so I think we have different understanding of what you wrote in your first sentence.) – Willie Wong Apr 03 '11 at 18:29
  • 1
    "present a theorem": Perhaps this is implicit, but I would add: Show them why the theorem will be useful to them. – Joseph O'Rourke Apr 03 '11 at 19:21
  • 2
    @Joseph, feel free to change the question, but please keep it short. – Anton Petrunin Apr 03 '11 at 19:31
  • 4
    Willie, no prerequisite, you only assume that they like math. – Anton Petrunin Apr 03 '11 at 19:34
  • 34
    I find it hard to square the "no prerequisites" condition with the "partitions of unity" example. Or are we talking about ideal undergraduate students, who like ideal gases are only an approximation to the reality? – Yemon Choi Apr 03 '11 at 20:34
  • 12
    In my opinion, the "try to be realistic" injunction (which I approve of in all pedagogical questions; note that a lot of experienced teachers do see some of the more ridiculously ambitious pedagogical suggestions promulgated in some answers here and have a good laugh at the naivete of the authors) is hard to square with the vagueness of the question. The term "very good undergraduate" alone is a currency whose value will rise and fall according to where you go. It is tempting to close the question as "too localized" for this reason, but I'll think about it a bit more... – Pete L. Clark Apr 03 '11 at 23:03
  • 10
    I too find the partitions of unity example unrealistic. I do think this and some of the examples below could be made to work if one wasn't obliged to give a proof, but perhaps only an intuitive idea, and then explain why it was useful -- sort of like a colloquium talk for undergraduates. – Todd Trimble Apr 03 '11 at 23:10
  • 2
    @Yemon, partiton of unity theorem for continuous functions on metric spaces can be proved in 3 min. You have to introduce metric spaces which is about 5-10 min and you leave "paracompactness" under the carpet, giving couple of examples instead. Then you still have 15 min or so... – Anton Petrunin Apr 04 '11 at 02:58
  • 9
    Anton: you can prove it, but why do you think your audience will absorb either the details or the significance? You seem to be assuming a fair bit of prerequisite knowledge, hence my confusion as to what examples you are really after. I could probably, if I rack my brains, define a ring, a module, a projective module and then do Schanuel's lemma in the alloted time, but would anybody who didn't know it really follow? – Yemon Choi Apr 04 '11 at 07:34
  • 17
    Indeed, Anton, you can do all sort of things in 30 minutes... but unless the students already somewhat familiar about the subject you are talking about, it is rather unusual that you can introduce three new objects, two concepts, and a theorem to anyone and as a result get them to understand the significance of anything. – Mariano Suárez-Álvarez Apr 04 '11 at 17:10
  • 3
    It would help if the OP explained what the purposes of the question is. How will the answers be used? – Boris Bukh Apr 04 '11 at 20:48
  • As far as I see, the theorem related to number “4” will be the best: First: four color theorem Second:Every positive integer can be represented by squares of four integers. Third: Every matrix can be represented by linear combinations of four matrix and so on – yaoxiao Apr 10 '11 at 09:02
  • 5
    If I could downvote the previous comment, I would. – Yemon Choi Apr 11 '11 at 09:07
  • 2
    I think this question is kind of ridiculous. Reducing mathematics to sound-byte theorems and "usefulness" is missing the point, I think. – Jonathan Beardsley Dec 19 '13 at 23:36

79 Answers79

98

Introduce generating functions and give couple of applications.

91

The Banach fixed point theorem.

Andrey Rekalo
  • 21,997
  • 3
    +1 for an answer which seems appropriate in every reasonable context I can think of. For instance Keith Conrad spoke about this in the UGA undergraduate math club last year, to great success. – Pete L. Clark Apr 03 '11 at 23:04
  • 19
    Elsewhere Pete L. Clark said: "Perhaps a moral here: just naming a theorem isn't maximally helpful, because the same theorem could make for both a good talk or a bad talk. Better would be to say a little bit about what you plan to do with it." – Todd Trimble Jul 30 '11 at 19:17
78

Singular Value Decomposition, probably one of the most useful and ubiquitous concepts out there. Half the time can be devoted to listing all the synonyms it goes by in various fields such as statistics and finance.

Alex R.
  • 4,902
  • 2
  • 40
  • 66
  • 6
    I give this a +1 because I wish someone had given me this talk as an undergraduate. To my shame, I am still somewhat fuzzy on the concept! – Pete L. Clark Apr 04 '11 at 00:10
  • 9
    Also known as the "Singularly Valuable Decomposition": http://www1.math.american.edu/People/kalman/pdffiles/svd.pdf – j.c. Apr 04 '11 at 02:05
  • Alex R., that's intriguing! Could you mention some of those synonyms? – LSpice Apr 08 '11 at 18:25
  • 12
    Principle component analysis (Stats), Schmidt Decomposition (Quantum Computation), multidimensional scaling, Low rank approximation, Multimode factor analysis, "Partison" index (voting) – Alex R. Apr 08 '11 at 19:59
  • 2
    @j.c. The link to the Kalman pdf file seems to be broken. – Todd Trimble Dec 24 '19 at 15:44
  • 1
    @ToddTrimble Thanks for letting me know! Here's a working internet archive link: https://web.archive.org/web/20111125110818/http://www1.math.american.edu:80/People/kalman/pdffiles/svd.pdf – j.c. Jan 02 '20 at 07:37
64

I would say something far far more elementary than all the other suggestions here (perhaps assuming the audience is in their first semester as undergraduates)

I would define an equivalence relation and an equivalence class and prove that equivalence classes on $X$ define a partition of $X$. (And then spend the remaining 29 minutes talking about their philosophical significance :) )

Its usefulness is of course immense but that doesn't mean we should attribute it solely to its obviousness. In my mind it also encodes so many very deep intuitions that separate high-school from college-level mathematics. To name a few:

  • The fact that there is nothing metaphysically 'special' about the relation of equality, which foreshadows the algebraic paradigm-shift towards isomorphisms
  • The fact that information about certain properties is better captured when we look at classes of objects satisfying a relation
  • That the foundations of analysis are a lot more conceptually flexible (and amenable to reinterpretation or even reinvention) than 'functions and derivatives'.
  • The information encoded by the definition of an equivalence relation is absolutely minimal and trivial to understand (which is why most undergraduates, I've found, almost scoff when a lecturer spends time defining it) and yet responsible for profoundly deep intuitions - think of the Grothendieck group.
  • It brings out the significance of structuralist thinking at a very early, pre-algebraic stage (this is more personal, but still)
Chuck
  • 497
  • 9
    Although useful sometimes, I believe equivalence classes are massively overused in contemporary mathematics, and far less useful than equivalence relations. I'm inclined to side with E. Bishop on this point. A lot of people seem to be unhealthily obsessed with putting things into classes when it's really not necessary - just knowing two distinct objects are equivalent is all you really need in many cases. – Zen Harper Apr 06 '11 at 08:45
  • 5
    Zen, could you elaborate on this? To a befuddled non-constructivist, equivalence classes and equivalence relations are very literally the same thing. Could you explain an example where thinking of the latter is ‘better’, in whatever vague sense, than thinking of the former? – LSpice Apr 08 '11 at 13:29
  • @LSpice I think what Zen has in mind (and I take his point) is an example like field extensions over a well-understood base field, in which case it doesn't really give you any insights to think of the isomorphism class of an extension (i.e. to think of unique classes of extensions being a kind of 'unique' extension) if you understand how an extension can be isomorphic to another (as an extension.) That said, one can't even prove completeness of $\text{FOL}_=$ without equivalence classes so there's definitely a sharp distinction between usefulness/fundamentality here. – Chuck Apr 08 '11 at 17:15
  • 3
    @Chuck: I agree that in the case of field extensions it's better to think in terms of isomorphisms rather than equivalence classes of extensions. But there are cases in which taking an equivalence class is the simplest and the most natural thing to do in order to avoid complications: e.g., defining a manifold as a set with an equivalence class of atlases allows you to avoid using an awkward notion of "spaces-with-atlas" and isomorphism between them or "change of atlas". – Qfwfq Apr 10 '11 at 17:08
  • @Chuch: Perhaps your (good!) points on equivalence classes are a bit too general for a beginner. All this should be developed slowly during a mathematical education. I think a good starting point would be a very specific example (e.g. the construction of Z out of N). – Martin Brandenburg Apr 12 '11 at 06:21
  • 1
    My guess is that Zen is happier with "the space of integrable measurable functions on [0,1], some of which may be equivalent to each other" than with "the space $L^1[0,1]$ of equivalence classes of ..." – Yemon Choi Apr 14 '11 at 02:56
  • I suppose Zen risks getting us out of the Paradise of (Cantor's) Set theory (which D. Hilbert praised and said we would not be taken from, if I remember correctly). I agree Set Theory is not the ultimate way of thinking, but it helps a lot. – Albuquerque Jul 30 '11 at 12:05
  • ...and if I wanted to introduce equivalence-relations to undergraduates, I'd definitely use the piano (modes, white-keys & black-keys, scales, the octave...) – isomorphismes May 22 '14 at 07:45
53

Edit (Feb 2021): The content of this MathOverflow answer now forms the backbone of Chapter 2 ("Multiple Proofs") in JDH's book, Proof and the Art of Mathematics. Get a copy!


Edit (Dec 2016): Encouraged by a few comments on MO, and a few direct emails about this post, I wrote up the ideas below for a journal of math education. The citation is:

Dickman, B. (2017). Enriching Divisibility: Multiple Proofs and Generalizations. Mathematics Teacher, 110(6), 416-423. Link (no pay-wall).


Having come across this question by searching within the mathematics-education tag, I will try to answer it from the perspective of someone in the field of Mathematics Education.

Theorem: $n^2 - n$ is even for all natural numbers $n$.

It is quite possible that very good undergraduates (I am imagining freshmen) will laugh at seeing such a "theorem" written on the board; it is almost certain that professional mathematicians will scoff. Nevertheless, this is a talk that I have given in the past to graduate students in Math Education who wish to teach secondary school mathematics in the future. Under some reasonable interpretation of the parameters given in this question, I should think these two groups alike enough to outline the talk here.


After writing the theorem on the board, I then write down a collection of headers, each of which is intended as suggesting a method of proof. Once the headers are written out, I give the students three minutes to prove the theorem using one method that they are sure they can carry out, and to attempt a proof using another method they are less sure of. Below I will write the headers, followed parenthetically by the sort of remark I might say aloud as I write them down, and then a brief indication of the proof.

Cases: (Probably you don't need more than two) The cases I am thinking of are even and odd; check what happens when $n = 2k$ and then check what happens when $n = 2k+1$.

High School Algebra: (Factoring) Write $n^2 - n = (n-1)n$ as the product of consecutive integers, hence once of them must be even; so the product is even.

Number Theory: (This might not mean so much to you all as freshmen; we'll return to it later!)

Arithmetic: (I'm thinking of adding up a certain arithmetic sequence) Consider the sum of the first $n-1$ natural numbers; this gives some natural number $k = (n-1)n/2$. Multiplying both sides by $2$, we find that $n^2 - n = (n-1)n = 2k$ is even.

Geometry: (How would you represent $n^2$ with a geometrical picture?) Consider an $n \times n$ array of squares; remove the $n$ squares along the diagonal. The number of squares remaining is $n^2 - n$ and one sees symmetrically that they have been split into two groups of equal size. Hence the total is even.

n = 4

Combinatorics: (I'm thinking of forming two person committees...) The number of two person committees in a group of $n$ people is some integer $k = (n-1)n/2$. Cf. Arithmetic.

Mathematical Induction: (For students familiar with induction, you might give this a shot) The base case is clear; suppose $k^2 - k$ is even and note $(k+1)^2 - (k+1) = k^2 + k = (k^2 - k) + 2k$ is the sum of two even numbers, and hence even.


The point of the above is to demonstrate that even a seemingly simple statement can be proved in a number of different ways. Such a demonstration, more than any particular theorem, is likely to be useful for all students (as specified by the OP). I usually have students discuss their answers and then use the theorem we've proved to talk about something else that ought to be useful for everyone: generalization.

The proofs above made frequent use of the following fact: $(n-1)n = n^2 - n$.

How would you generalize the following statements?

Statement A: If $n \in \mathbb{N}$, then $2$ divides $(n-1)n$.

Statement B: If $n \in \mathbb{N}$, then $2$ divides $n^2 - n$.

The former statement suggests (in my mind) that $k$ divides $k$ consecutive numbers; the latter statement suggests (in my mind) that $k$ divides $n^k - n$.

Consider when $k = 3$.

Then the statements become:

Statement A: If $n \in \mathbb{N}$, then $3$ divides $(n-1)n(n+1)$.

Statement B: If $n \in \mathbb{N}$, then $3$ divides $n^3 - n$.

Not only are these statements true, they coincide: $(n-1)n(n+1) = n^3 - n$.

This overlap breaks down for $n>3$, though, and we find that only A is true for $n=4$. (Perhaps a good point at which to mention how a single counterexample can disprove a for all statement.)

From here, the talk suggests that A is a good segue into modular arithmetic, while B practically begs us to find the $k$ for which it holds. Of course, we can answer this question using Number Theory (as mentioned early on!) and, more precisely, by appealing to Fermat's Little Theorem.


I believe the talk outlined above, with its messages about the possibility of finding multiple proofs and the interesting directions in which a simple proposition can be generalized, is a practical and doable thirty minute talk for first-year students in mathematics. I have done nothing close to applying Groebner bases or making use of ultraproducts, but I have tried to heed the OP's request to be realistic.

  • 6
    Nice lecture :) – Anton Petrunin Dec 19 '13 at 03:56
  • 3
    This is a great answer indeed. – Giuseppe Negro Feb 02 '16 at 23:19
  • 1
    Now this indeed answers the original question! – Matemáticos Chibchas Jun 16 '16 at 00:04
  • 4
    Very inspiring! I would reformulate the arithmetical proof though, by observing that $n(n-1)$ equals the sum of $1+2+\ldots+(n-1)$ and $(n-1)+(n-2)+\ldots+1$. But this is clearly a matter of taste. – R.P. Nov 02 '16 at 04:16
  • Great idea! Might want to notice that the proof by induction invites looking at binomial coefficient and lead to an “elementary” (whatever elementary means) proof of fermat's little theorem. I wrote some details here: https://people.math.ethz.ch/~menashea/md/LittleFermat – Menny Sep 01 '22 at 13:22
  • 1
    @Menny Thanks! Note: In your linked post, you have misspelled my surname. – Benjamin Dickman Sep 01 '22 at 22:00
  • A more playful/literary text (in the tradition of Oulipo) along the same lines is "99 Variations on a Proof" by Philip Ording: https://press.princeton.edu/books/hardcover/9780691158839/99-variations-on-a-proof – Sam Hopkins Dec 27 '23 at 03:02
  • @SamHopkins See also the Edgar and Treviño collection of proofs here: https://campus.lakeforest.edu/trevino/ManyProofsSumConsecutives.pdf – Benjamin Dickman Dec 27 '23 at 05:49
51

How about the probabilistic method?

There are plenty of elementary, self-contained examples to choose from, and it has a pithy slogan that's memorable enough even for non-combinatorialists. (Can't construct something explicitly? Then construct it randomly!) Best of all, it has a nice wow factor: While many undergraduates may be familiar with nonconstructive phenomena in mathematics, the fact that we need to resort to such to say things about finite graphs is rather surprising.

Evan Jenkins
  • 7,107
49

Euler's formula $V - E + F = 2$.

46

The Chinese Remainder Theorem. This is ripe for giving some nice applications, some of which are given in this MO thread (hat tip to Pete Clark; I presume this is the one he meant).

Todd Trimble
  • 52,336
  • 1
    This certainly meets the criterion of 100% useful, but at least here at UGA this is part of the standard curriculum (in abstract algebra), so I'm not sure it needs to be discussed in a talk. If it were, I would imagine that some of the students would know it and some wouldn't, which is not ideal. – Pete L. Clark Apr 03 '11 at 23:12
  • Sigh. You could say the same about generating functions: if they've seen it in a course, then they've seen it in a course. I really meant that one could explain it just in the case of integers and the polynomial ring R[x], even if they hadn't had any abstract algebra, and give some a nice application or two. (You really are in an editorial mood, aren't you? :-) – Todd Trimble Apr 03 '11 at 23:22
  • @Todd: I'm clearly less agreeable than usual, yes. Sorry about that. But I can't disagree with "if they've seen it in a course, then they've seen it in a course"! In my experience CRT is much more standard than generating functions, but again this could vary depending upon location. On the other hand, maybe I misinterpreted what you meant by CRT. If you mean the one with pairwise comaximal ideals in an arbitrary ring, then a talk discussing various special cases and applications of this could actually be very nice, especially if students have already seen the most classical version. – Pete L. Clark Apr 03 '11 at 23:37
  • 3
    Perhaps a moral here: just naming a theorem isn't maximally helpful, because the same theorem could make for both a good talk or a bad talk. Better would be to say a little bit about what you plan to do with it. – Pete L. Clark Apr 03 '11 at 23:38
  • True, I could have been less lazy in my answer (perhaps I was unduly swayed by the other one-liners). Then again, I hadn't planned the lecture yet; I knew there was a lot you could do with this theme, and hadn't made up my mind about what would be the choicest nuggets. – Todd Trimble Apr 03 '11 at 23:45
  • Well, one could do a lot worse than pick and choose from the answers to the MO question on applications of CRT: there's some really good stuff there... – Pete L. Clark Apr 04 '11 at 00:09
  • @Pete: I wouldn't go so far as to disagree with "if they've seen it in a course, then they've seen it in a course." But I would disagree with the implication that "if they've seen it in a course, then there's no point discussing it in a talk". If you think that most of your abstract algebra students can discuss what CRT says and why it's important a year after taking abstract algebra, then I either envy you for your students, envy your teaching ability, or pity your naïveté. – Mark Meckes Apr 05 '11 at 15:29
41

The Central Limit Theorem.

ght
  • 3,616
36

The Pigeonhole Principle

James
  • 1,879
  • 27
    … but the Pigeonhole Principle itself is extremely boring (I think); it's all in the applications. Which ones would you demonstrate? – LSpice Apr 08 '11 at 13:30
34

Maybe (a suitably weak version of) Brouwer fixed point theorem? For example you can prove the version for smooth maps, or the topological version in low dimensions. And there are so many generalizations of the theorem that it seems the students are bound to run into some version of topological fixed points in the future.

You can even mention, as an application of topological fixed points, Littlewood's proof that there always exists a way to put a rod standing on one end in a train travelling between Kings Cross and Cambridge such that it would not fall over. (In fact, isn't that entire chapter of the Miscellany [Chapter 1, Mathematics with minimum raw material] consisting of answers to your question?)

Willie Wong
  • 37,551
  • Willie, is that the contested argument (in both directions) from Courant and Robbins? – Yemon Choi Apr 03 '11 at 20:32
  • @Yemon: I don't know the Courant and Robbins discussion. Littlewood's argument goes something like this: first we assume that the dynamics of the rod is continuous with respect to initial position. Then if every initial position leads to the rod falling down in finite time, this gives a continuous retraction from the disc to its boundary, which is impossible. Hmm, I should probably have put quotes around the word "proof" in the above... let's just say I left it out in honor of the Hardy-Littlewood memorial bench outside my office. – Willie Wong Apr 03 '11 at 20:42
  • I suppose dim=2 – Anton Petrunin Apr 03 '11 at 20:48
  • +1: again, this seems close to universally appropriate and useful. – Pete L. Clark Apr 03 '11 at 23:07
27

Newton's method for solving the non-linear (systems of) equations. How to make the presentation depends on the level and interests of the students. It can range from a fast algorithm for finding the square root with high precision to some advanced topics in dynamics.

fedja
  • 59,730
  • I was amazed when I learned that it also works on spaces other than $R^n$, e.g. :
    • In $M_n(k)$, to find the Dunford decomposition.
    • In $Z/nZ$, to solve congruence.
    • In $Z_p$, to prove Hensel lemma, but this situation is quite similar from $R^n$.
    – Auguste Hoang Duc Apr 06 '11 at 16:36
  • Auguste, according to Wikipedia, the Dunford decomposition is the Jordan decomposition. If that's so, what system of equations do you solve to find it? The approach I know solves a particular system by the Chinese Remainder Theorem; do you solve the same system by Newton's method? – LSpice Apr 08 '11 at 18:29
  • 1
    @L Spice : I call it Dunford because it is the French term. My method is the following : let $P(x)$ be the caracteristic polynomial of a matrix $A$ and let $Q(X):=P(X)/(gcd(P'(X),P(X)))$ (assume $caract(k)=0$ otherwise the formula for $Q(X)$ is more complicated). Consider the sequence defined by $A_0:=A$ and $A_{n+1}:=A_n-Q(A_n)/Q'(A_n)$. Then for all $n \geq log_2(dimension)$, the matrix $A_n$ is the semisimple part of $A$ (the key point is to notice that the semi-simple part is a zero of $Q(X)$ in the vector space $k[A]$). I don't know about your method, so I can't tell if it is the same. – Auguste Hoang Duc Apr 12 '11 at 08:25
  • @L Spice : Can you tell me about your method ? (sorry for the split, but the comment was too long). – Auguste Hoang Duc Apr 12 '11 at 08:30
  • @AugusteHoangDuc, sorry that I missed your question for 7 years! Searching for "Jordan decomposition Chinese remainder theorem" turned up, for example, https://math.stackexchange.com/a/897683 , which quotes Humphreys's instance of this reasoning. – LSpice Nov 20 '18 at 19:22
26

Picard–Lindelöf theorem on existence and uniqueness of solutions to ordinary differential equations, introducing Picard iteration along the way.

Willie Wong
  • 37,551
24

The Arzelà-Ascoli theorem.

Dirk
  • 12,325
  • 3
    I think this is especially true for students interested in any sort of geometry or topology. I can't tell you how many times I've seen "it follows from Arzela-Ascoli that..." in papers and talks. – BMann Apr 04 '11 at 04:21
  • Link is broken. (Hopefully) correct one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arzel%C3%A0%E2%80%93Ascoli_theorem – Woett Apr 05 '11 at 01:19
24

Hall Marriage theorem

This is a very useful theorem in combinatorics, analysis, algebra, computational complexity, and more.

Gil Kalai
  • 24,218
23

A short presentation on the Hopf fibration could be very useful as it is such a central example. The idea to make it elementary would be to take a concrete point of view and include lots of pictures.

Rbega
  • 2,279
  • Niles Johnson posted a very nice talk of this sort on youtube: http://www.nilesjohnson.net/hopf.html complete with excellent visuals (at the end) accompanied by high-energy music. Basically a Hopf-sphere disco ball. – isomorphismes May 22 '14 at 07:49
21

Using Groebner Bases to solve equations. Just use the lexicographic ordering without disucssing theory. Mash generalized polynomial long division and Buchberger's algorithm into one mechanical procedure. 30 minutes is pretty tight, but doable.

19

Borsuk-Ulam theorem. A very useful topological theorem. It is very easy to state and to describe some applications, or alternatively to describe what is involved in a proof.

Gil Kalai
  • 24,218
17

Strong law of large numbers

Ed Dean
  • 2,276
  • 2
  • 18
  • 32
14

Quite unbelievable that I haven't seen that answer in the previous ones.

Cantor's Theorem & Cantor's Diagonal.

Both of these are quite short, and one can squeeze them into a 30 minutes discussion including the definition of "cardinality".

I find them useful, even if not directly applicable, the shock that infinite objects (and generally, mathematical objects) need not match our finite intuition is probably one of the most important things that new mathematicians should learn. When you know that you don't know what to do, you work with the definitions slowly and carefully and eventually you develop the intuition that allows you to run freely in the field.

Asaf Karagila
  • 38,140
  • One immediate application is that there are languages that are not recognizable by any program since there are more languages than programs. As an alternative, there are programs (running forever on a machine with unlimited memory) that print out the digits of pi, one at a time, but there are some real numbers so that no program prints out the digits in order. – Douglas Zare Aug 04 '22 at 07:19
14

Lagrange's theorem (order of a sugroup divides the order of the group).

anonymous
  • 201
  • 3
    This strikes me as having the opposite problem to some of the other ideas: it seems hard to fill up an entire half hour on this. – Paul Siegel Apr 05 '11 at 17:16
  • 6
    You can use it to prove Fermat's little theorem, mix it with some group action to prove combinatorial results or Cauchy's theorem on the existence of elements of order $p$, etc. – anonymous Apr 06 '11 at 00:01
13

Simplicity of the alternating group An for $n\geq 5$, contrasted with its non-simplicity for $n\leq 4$.

  • 8
    I must ask, is there a particular reason why you wrote $n > 4$ and $n < 5$ instead of $n \ge 5$ and $n \le 4$? I've always found the former a little bit hard to parse (which could well be a personal failure on my part). – Willie Wong Apr 03 '11 at 20:58
  • 4
    To minimize LaTeX code... you're right, it was silly. I editted it. – Daniel Moskovich Apr 03 '11 at 21:54
13

Elementary symmetric polynomials generate the ring of symmetric polynomials.

Arend Bayer
  • 2,151
12

Min-max principle and spectral theorem as a corollary for real symmetric matrices. I often teach this quickly in my vector analysis course as an example of finding extrema of functions in $\mathbb{R}^n$.

  • Yes, I like this too. The usual approach passes through Hermitian matrices with complex entries and the fundamental theorem of algebra, but the spectral theorem for real symmetric matrices can be done just by the method of "Lagrange multipliers". – Todd Trimble Apr 04 '11 at 20:39
12

The spectral theorem for normal operators.

ght
  • 3,616
  • I like this one, Gabriel. Could you tell why you think it will be 100% useful? (I'm just curious...) – Jon Bannon Apr 06 '11 at 01:18
  • Data analysis in the context of principal component analysis. Wireless communications and information theory is another example. Essentially how much information you can communicate in a MIMO system it's related to the spectrum of the channel matrix. – ght Apr 06 '11 at 01:31
  • @Jon Bannon: The interpretation of normal operators as random variables in quantum mechanics. Finding Green's functions using resolvents. Functional calculus for normal operators. Representation theory of Lie groups. Harmonic analysis. Spectral graph theory. The question "why is the spectral theorem 100% useful" deserves a big-list all to itself... – Vectornaut Mar 27 '14 at 06:43
  • @Vectornaut: Preaching to the choir. Thanks for filling out the answer a bit! – Jon Bannon Mar 27 '14 at 12:14
  • @JonBannon: Ah, sorry! I somehow misread the intent of your question, even though I was confused, after looking at your research interests, about why you'd be asking it. Putting that little list together was instructive for me, in any case, so thanks for inspiring me to do it. :P – Vectornaut Mar 28 '14 at 02:41
11

Okay, last one from me tonight.

Separating hyperplane theorem and/or the Riesz extension theorem. The finite (or 2) dimensional version is fairly easy to illustrate and not too hard to prove. And of course as an example application you can assume the infinite dimensional version and derive Hahn-Banach Theorem (the version about extending linear functionals). Consider its use in convex and functional analysis, at least some of the students will run into something like this in the future.

Willie Wong
  • 37,551
11

Robinston-Schensted-Knuth algorithm

This is a map between permutations to pairs of standard tableaux. So it immediately gives various wonderful facts. It is elementary, short and useful.

Gil Kalai
  • 24,218
11

The isoperimetric inequality.

  • Ubiquitous in geometry.
  • Among the easier examples of variational problems.
  • Can be used to illustrate why we need rigorous proofs of things that are "obvioius".
Paul Siegel
  • 28,772
  • 4
    "Can be used to illustrate why we need rigorous proofs of things that are "obvious"." I don't see how this is an example for this - an illustration of need of rigor would be a situation where "obvious intuition" turns out to be wrong. Even if you accept the isoperimetric inequality without proof, as "obvious", nothing bad happens. – Marcin Kotowski Apr 10 '11 at 09:54
  • Rigor is important both to avoid wrong proofs of wrong theorems and wrong proofs of true theorems, and there are lots of wrong proofs of the isoperimetic inequality which lead to interesting mathematics. See, for example:

    http://mathdl.maa.org/mathDL/46/?pa=content&sa=viewDocument&nodeId=1186&bodyId=1320

    – Paul Siegel Apr 29 '11 at 02:22
10

Helly theorem. It is easy to motivate state and prove in 30 minutes. It is very useful in terms of application as a fundamental example of a result in combinatorial geometry.

Gil Kalai
  • 24,218
  • It is a very nice theorem, but it is not 100% useful. I think it would be much better to introduce nerve of covering (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nerve_of_a_covering) and use Helly as an illustration. – Anton Petrunin Apr 04 '11 at 20:58
  • Dear Anton, It really depends how advanced are these undergraduates. But in any case the nerve theorem seems too difficult for 30 minute. For advanced students you can mention at the end that Helly theorem can be seen as some older simple brother of the Nerve theorem. – Gil Kalai Apr 04 '11 at 21:43
  • No, I only suggested to present construction of nerve and use it to formulate Helly theorem. (Just because nerves are 100% useful.) – Anton Petrunin Apr 04 '11 at 23:58
  • MAybe it is a little late to ask, Anton, but what do you mean by 100% useful? – Gil Kalai Apr 10 '11 at 10:47
  • Not only do I consider Helly's theorem a very good topic and a 100% useful theorem, I would definitely segue into the statement of the fractional Helly theorem at the end of the talk as a beautiful illustration of the general idea that often, if the hypothesis to a theorem are almost but not quite fulfilled, the conclusion should be almost true too. – Thierry Zell Apr 11 '11 at 22:48
8

The Archimedes proof that the uniform distribution on the sphere projects on the uniform distribution on a diameter.

  • 2
    I don't understand what the statement is supposed to be, nor am I confident that Archimedes is someone who proved it. Could you link to a reference, please? – Todd Trimble Mar 27 '14 at 17:05
  • 1
    @ToddTrimble If you consider a sphere to have a uniform mass distribution (constant surface density), and consider the vertical diameter, then if you project all mass horizontally onto this diameter, this diameter (segment) acquires a uniform mass distribution (line density). This is related to the fact that the surface area of a "spherical zone" is proportional to its height, $A=2\pi Rh$. This was certainly known to Archimedes and is associated with him. It is related to the Lambert cylindrical equal-area projection ("Archimedes projection"). – Jeppe Stig Nielsen Sep 25 '15 at 20:43
  • @JeppeStigNielsen Thank you! That was very helpful. – Todd Trimble Sep 25 '15 at 22:02
8

Stokes' Theorem

Igor Khavkine
  • 20,710
  • 11
    Are you planning to introduce manifolds and differential forms in 30 min? – Anton Petrunin Apr 03 '11 at 20:45
  • 1
    Definitely a challenge. But that doesn't necessarily mean that it cannot be met. I must admit though that my suggestion is based more on how much I would have appreciated such a talk as an undergraduate, rather than on experience with its practicality. – Igor Khavkine Apr 04 '11 at 01:19
  • We had a 50 minute lecture on this once in second year undergraduate, with many details elided over, but it definitely left quite an impression. 30 minutes seems tight, but not ridiculous. – Simon Rose Apr 04 '11 at 21:15
7

Sperner's lemma (Two-dimensional case)

  • 4
    I don't know about 100% useful, but since I have seen a striking use for it (in the proof of Monsky's theorem about cutting a rectangle into congruent triangles) I won't object on that account. I note that the OP's suggestions seem more reasonable than some of the answers... – Pete L. Clark Apr 03 '11 at 23:10
  • Pete, can you give me a reference on that? – Mariano Suárez-Álvarez Apr 04 '11 at 17:53
  • @Mariano: sure, how about this? http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~amathew/HMMT.pdf (I was going to give you the link to Monsky's original article, but to my surprise he does not explicitly use Sperner's Lemma. But that's the way it was presented in a talk given by Aaron Abrams in the graduate student seminar at UGA a few years ago. By the way, this was maybe the best talk I have seen in my five years in Georgia...) – Pete L. Clark Apr 04 '11 at 19:29
  • In my first comment, please replace "congruent" with "equal area". (Oops!) – Pete L. Clark Apr 05 '11 at 14:09
7

The definition of the tensor product and existence/uniqueness/associativity properties.

I know, this is perhaps not a single theorem but in my eyes one of the most useful "elemetary" concepts. Personally, I had two semesters of linear algebra without mentioning the tensor product. And from this I suffered for a long time during my further studies. Now it is my first homework/exercise for students in my lectures (e.g. diff geo).

If the student is really clever, one can even do something like the tensor algebra in these 30 min.

  • As with other answers, I have to downvote here, because it just does not fit to the question; unless you give a specific motivation and application, why this would be interesting and is not just a part of elementary linear algebra. – Martin Brandenburg Apr 12 '11 at 06:26
7

Uniform convergence of the averages of the partial sums of the Fourier series, for any continuous function $f$ on $[0, 2 \pi]$ with $f(0)=f(2\pi)$:

$$ \sigma_N(f, \theta) = \sum_{n = -N}^N \left(1-\frac{|n|}{N+1} \right) \widehat{f}(n)e^{in \theta} \to f(\theta) $$

And the Weierstrauss Polynomial Approximation Theorem: the polynomials are uniformly dense in $C[a,b]$. This is a corollary of the Fourier series result, or it can be proved similarly. Finally, if time permits, the Stone-Weierstrauss Theorem.

Of course, it would be nice to talk about approximations to the Dirac Delta, convolutions, fundamental solutions to PDEs, e.g. the Heat Equation, etc. etc. but I suppose only a REALLY good class could absorb all this in half an hour...

Zen Harper
  • 1,930
7

I would introduce Bezout's Theorem (there is an article on wiki). It will be hard to prove this statement in the full generality, but the proof of the weaker statement:

The system of two polynomials $P(x,y)$ and $Q(x,y)$ without common factors of degrees $m$ and $n$ correspondingly has at most $mn$ solutions.

takes one page at most and uses only the fact that polynomials of two variables have a unique factorisation in irreducible polynomial. (for example, you can check page 244 in an appendix of the book "Rational Points on Elliptic curves" of Silverman and Tate).

The well-known beautiful (or, say, elementary) application of this theorem is Pascal's theorem.

aglearner
  • 13,995
  • I don't think this is needed to prove Pascal. How are you using it? (NB: the case when one of $P$ and $Q$ is linear is trivial.) – darij grinberg Nov 09 '11 at 19:17
  • 2
    Dear Darij, well that is not me who is using it ... This is Fulton, Miles Reid, Seilverman, and many many others (basically any algebraic geometer who wrote a book on curves)... you can check page 62 here, for example : http://www.math.lsa.umich.edu/~wfulton/CurveBook.pdf – aglearner Nov 09 '11 at 22:39
  • My point is that when one of the polynomials $P$ and $Q$ factors into linear factors, you cannot talk of a real application of Bezout - it's a triviality. – darij grinberg Dec 03 '11 at 17:01
  • Darij, sure, I understand your point. The proof of Pascal using Bezout is non-trivial. It is applied to the conic and to one specific cubic in the pencil generated by two reduced cubics consisting to two triples of lines of the hexagon. – aglearner Jan 16 '12 at 00:30
  • Lecture 1 gives a half page proof of slightly weaker statement http://ium.mccme.ru/f09/algebra3.html – aglearner May 09 '12 at 16:41
6

Theorem. $\sqrt{2}$ is irrational.

This is an ancient theorem, about 2400 years old, and its modern proof is identical to the one appearing in Euclid's elements. A simple number theoretic proof, where you get the chance to use the abductio ad absurdum (or εἰς ἄτοπον ἀπαγωγή).

Note. As Victor Protsak noted, the number-theoretical proof is not the first one. The first one is believed to geometrical, using anthyphaeresis (ἀνθυφαίρεσις), i.e., proving geometricallly that the euclidean algorithm of dividing $1+\sqrt{2}$ by $1$ is periodic: \begin{align} 1+\sqrt{2}&=2\cdot 1 +v_1, \\ 1&=2\cdot v_1+v_2, \\ v_1&=2\cdot v_2+v_3, \\ \text{etc} \end{align} and thus $1+\sqrt{2}$ and $1$ are inconsummerable (ἀσὐμμετρα). It is noteworthy that, although the number theoretical proof appaears Euclid's Elements, which were written c. 300 BC, the fact that there is a proof that the square roots of positive integers less than 19 is mentioned in Theaetetus of Plato, writeen c. 380 BC. Anthyphaeresis works for every $n$, but it can get extremely complicated, as $n$ gets larger. In fact, for $n=19$, in order to establish periodicity of Euclidean algorithm, 6 steps are required, and huge geometrical figures to observe it! A few years ago I supervised a Master's thesis on this proof, and I think it makes an extremely interesting lecture.

smyrlis
  • 2,873
  • 2
    Well, there are by now many proofs, lending themselves to different directions and generalizations, and such might make for an interesting 30-minute lecture to undergraduates. – Todd Trimble Dec 19 '13 at 23:15
  • @ToddTrimble Agreed; I think What would you do? ought to encompass more than just the stated theorem... – Benjamin Dickman Dec 19 '13 at 23:44
  • 2
    In fact, there is some controversy as to whether the "traditional" even-odd reductio ad absurdum proof was the first one. Many sources assert that the original proof extended to irrationality of $\sqrt{d}$ for $d<17, d\ne 1,4,9,16,$ which would be consistent with not using elementary divisibility properties of primes. Also, some authors believe that a geometric proof involving the diagonal and the side of a square (the one that is equivalent to the non-termination of the continued fraction expansion of $\sqrt{2}-1$) was invented concurrently with or earlier than the even-odd argument. – Victor Protsak Dec 20 '13 at 01:46
  • @BenjaminDickman I agree with you; perhaps smyrlis would like to add more details. – Todd Trimble Dec 20 '13 at 01:56
  • @VictorProtsak I've also heard it said that the proof of irrationality of $\sqrt{5}$, based on the geometry of the pentagon, may well have preceded that of $\sqrt{2}$. – Todd Trimble Dec 20 '13 at 01:57
  • @VictorProtsak: See edited version of my answer, were historical data are added. – smyrlis Dec 20 '13 at 07:29
6

Combinatorial Nullstellensatz. You may prove it and then choose your favorite applications for as many minutes as you have. I personally like to include applications to evaluation of coefficients, as explained in this MO answer, after that to additive combinatorics, like Cauchy--Davenport theorem, and to graph theory, like 3-choosability of a planar bipartite graph.

Fedor Petrov
  • 102,548
6

Compactness of First Order Logic (using ultraproducts, not as a corollary of completeness; they get Łoś's Theorem for ultraproducts as a freebie.)

  • 8
    Hmm, "using ultraproducts"... – Anton Petrunin Apr 03 '11 at 20:54
  • 2
    I have a lot of reservations about this answer, which will be more or less valid depending upon how you interpret the parameters of the question (which I also think is rather vague). First of all the OP said "100% useful". Now I happen to know and like this exact result enough to have made it the climax of a short course I taught last summer. Nevertheless I have not yet used any form of the Compactness Theorem for anything in my own work (I am an arithmetic geometer), and I think probably the majority of working mathematicians would say the same thing.... – Pete L. Clark Apr 03 '11 at 22:53
  • 2
    Second, the course I taught consisted of eight two-hour lectures to math graduate students (who were "very good" according to at least one reasonable interpretation of the term). It was not assumed that they had any previous exposure to mathematical logic of any kind, nor any previous exposure to ultrafilters. (And in fact none of them did have any prior experience with these things.) I mentioned the Compactness Theorem in either the second or third lecture, at the time without proof. The proof came in the last lecture, after I introduced ultrafilters from scratch... – Pete L. Clark Apr 03 '11 at 22:55
  • 5
    And you want to do all of this in half an hour, for undergraduates? I suppose I could compile a nonempty set of undergraduates (Qiaochu Yuan, Akhil Mathew, Zev Chonoles,...) for which this might have a chance of flying, but as a general suggestion this comes off as being much more likely to blow up in one's face. – Pete L. Clark Apr 03 '11 at 22:58
  • 1
    I think the compactness theorem is useful even if you don't apply it in your work. I think it is the best way to understand what the difference between first order sentences and others is. – Michael Greinecker Apr 04 '11 at 06:15
  • @Pete: You make a great point - One has to be very careful. But, with careful planning, I do think the ``big idea'' of compactness and an impactful impression of the power it gives one in constructing models of first-order theories can be communicated in 30 minutes. I believe this general setting of considering an arbitrary first-order theory and its models can be quite a revelation to undergraduates, as long as they have experience with reasoning about specific theories and models in the past, say after one or two abstract algebra courses. If nothing else,it leaves an inspiring impression. – Grant Olney Passmore Apr 05 '11 at 18:12
6

The well-ordering theorem and an application (that uses transfinite recursion, after well-ordering a set). Many interesting sets and examples can be built that way. Or maybe Axiom of Choice/Zorn's lemma (show one from the other) and then show the well-ordering theorem.

  • Transfinite recursion is wonderful, but 30 minutes are not enough for it. (To test their understanding, ask them to show that it fails for non-well-orders.) – Goldstern Jun 06 '11 at 16:23
6

Heisenberg's uncertainty principle.

  • Everyone should be exposed to quantum mechanics.
  • Appears frequently in analysis and probability (not to mention physics).
  • Showcases some of the highlights of Fourier theory.
Paul Siegel
  • 28,772
5

Series representations for functions and the fact that $\mathbb C$ is "rigid" in contrast to $\mathbb R$ when discussing differentiability and series developements.

This "explains" for example how pocket calculators compute trigonometric functions, logarithms and exponentials.

Roland Bacher
  • 17,432
5

Gödel's incompleteness theorems

A non-technical overview could be done in a fairly short amount of time, thus allowing for some discussion of its various implications, particularly regarding possible roles of mathematics.

4

I am surprised that no one mentioned the Baire category theorem.

I am not sure if you would have enough time to show many applications in 30 minutes but it is almost certain that they will end up using it at some point. Here are some applications discussed on MO.

Burak
  • 4,135
4

Hilbert projection theorem

4
  • The famous Heine - Borel theorem which says that a closed a bounded subset of $\mathbb{R}^{n}$ is compact.
C.S.
  • 4,735
4

[I would introduce Taylor's theorem and point out that it has many applications for instance in physics but also in differential geometry. On the one hand very elementary proofs can be given, but on the other hand, for practical computations with "nice" functions it is always helpful to have that theorem in full generality at the ready. For instance in Riemannian Geometry, one uses Taylor expansion in combination with Jacobi fields to expand the metric tensor locally. This does show that locally, we can find coordinates s.t. the metric behaves like the standard Euclidean metric, but there have to be some corrections such as one term involving the Riemannian curvature tensor.][http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taylor's_theorem]

gggg gggg
  • 41
  • 1
  • 4
  • You should definitely give the integral form of the remainder. This form somehow seems less well known despite being at least seven hundred thirty times as useful. – Phil Isett Dec 04 '11 at 04:22
4

My suggestion -- assuming they have not yet taken a class on complex analysis -- would be to talk about Eulers formula and De Moivre's formula, along with the complex representations of the most common trigonometric functions. Perhaps, if there is time left, power series and the Cauchy product could be touched upon.

This could help the students to understand better how some trigonometric identities can be derived, which is usually not explained in detail until a first course on complex analysis.

Each of the topics is simple enough to introduce in a very short amount of time, so there would probably be time left to show some cool applications.

4

Moore closures, their relation to collections of Moore-closed sets and a characterization for closure under finitary operations.

One can then discuss why Moore-closed sets form a complete lattice and a lot more, if one feels so inclined.

This is certainly something students will encounter over, and over, and over again in different guises. Moore-closures are certainly among the most useful trivialities I know.

3

Existence of Nash equilibria. This is feasible in 30 minutes, and builds surprising connections between game theory, elementary probability, elementary geometry, and algebraic topology.

3

Let $G$ be a finite group and $V_i$, $i=1,...,r$ be the irreducible representations, $d_i:=dim(V_i)$. Then $|G|=\sum_i d_{i}^{2}$.

  • 1
    This is certainly a high point in a first course on representation theory, but why is it a worthy stand-alone topic? Will it be useful to a student who otherwise knows no representation theory? (Or will it persuade a student to study representation theory?) – Pete L. Clark Apr 04 '11 at 14:46
  • 1
    When I was an undergraduate, I was persuaded to read Serres book when an older student told me about that result. – Johannes Ebert Apr 04 '11 at 15:08
  • 1
    Once one knows a bit of representation theory, one is certainly set up to appreciate this as a surprising and exciting result; but, for a typical undergraduate audience, I would think one would have first to define a representation—which, itself, if done and motivated well, should take a big chunk of the time. – LSpice Apr 08 '11 at 16:48
3

Sanov's theorem of large deviations.

I don't have to prove anything, right? If they want a proof, they'll look it up in a book later.

Assume the students already know about the central limit theorem. Explain how the two theorems talk about limits in different direction: let $ S_n $ be the sum of $ n $ independent variables of identical distributions (real valued, with zero mean and finite variance), the central limit theorem gives a limit of the unscaled probability $ P(S_n/\sqrt{n} < c) $, this limit is strictly between 0 and 1; whereas large deviation theorems give the rate of decrease of a probability like $ P(S_n/n < c) $.

3

I've always been thrilled by the fact that the coefficients of a (monic) polynomial are obtained by taking the elementary symmetric functions in (minus) the roots of that polynomial:

$$\prod_{i=1}^n (X+\alpha_i) = \sum_{k=0}^n (\sum_{i_1 < \cdots < i_k} \alpha_{i_1} \cdots \alpha_{i_k})X^{n-k}$$ A lot is built on this, I think. I'd like to explain the connection to automorphisms and fixed fields and how the roots of a polynomial are permuted by an automorphism that fixes the coefficient field of that polynomial. Then maybe mention the beginnings of Galois theory.

vonbrand
  • 101
3

At the risk of incurring the wrath of some here, I would propose the Yoneda Lemma, along with the minimum of necessary category theory. Like it or not, category theory is hugely useful to algebraists, and early exposure can be very helpful. (It was to me!)

  • 6
    I also considered the Yoneda lemma, but I think it's a tricky case. To me the Yoneda lemma is just about the deepest "triviality" (if that isn't too self-contradictory!) in all of mathematics, but I think its profound significance takes quite some time to sink in, and it's not so easy to get that across in 30 minutes (I don't think). – Todd Trimble Apr 05 '11 at 11:38
  • @Todd: Well, it might be worth a try... (I'm in a better mood today, I guess.) – Pete L. Clark Apr 05 '11 at 14:13
  • 1
    To explain the Yoneda Lemma to undergraduates, you need to introduce the concept of a category, that of a functor, and that of a natural transformation (unless that is taught in an undergraduate course, but if it is, then the Yoneda Lemma is probably taught in that course, too). Then you can start working on the lemma. I don't see how this can reasonably done within 30 minutes, in particular because just giving definitions does not given the students any intuition. – Niemi Sep 09 '13 at 08:55
3

The Martingale stochastic process

picakhu
  • 39
3

I would tell them "What is real maths". To achieve this use Lakatos way about Euler's formula ( $ V - E + F = 2 $ ).
It is a set of successive reformulations (more and more precise) each followed by a counter example justifying the next reformulation.

Reference is : I. Lakatos, "Proofs and Refutations: The Logic of Mathematical Discovery

3

The Arithmetic Mean-Geometric Mean Inequality.

  • This needs more self-contained elaboration. – Douglas Zare Jan 10 '16 at 06:05
  • Actually, this inequality allowed me to show that the quantity $ r_{0}(n) $ defined as $ \inf{r\geqslant 0,(n-r,n+r)\in\mathbb{P}^{2}} $ assuming Goldbach's conjecture, but definable unconditionnally as "the smallest potential primality radius of n" provided n is large enough, is an $O(\log^4 n)$, seemingly establishing asymptotic Goldbach conjecture. See my question 'About Goldbach's conjecture' on this site and my quite unrigorous blog ideasfornumbertheory.com. So yes, this inequality is useful and important. – Sylvain JULIEN Dec 17 '16 at 23:27
3

Cauchy's integral theorem and Cauchy's integral formula.

It's really an example of a jewellery-type and tool-type theorem at the same time. It can be introduced and proved for students that even don't know about functions of complex variables in 20 minutes. And other 10 minutes can be spend to say how many applications and generalizations these results have in theory of functions and applied mathematics.

2

Tarski's fixed point theorem.

2

Completeness theorem for first order logic.

Stefan Geschke
  • 16,346
  • 2
  • 53
  • 80
2

Stone's representation theorem.

Ed Dean
  • 2,276
  • 2
  • 18
  • 32
  • I doubt that you can explain the formulation in 30 min. If you can, then how? – Anton Petrunin Apr 03 '11 at 20:52
  • 2
    I suppose I just find it no more implausible than taking 30 minutes to introduce metric spaces and partition of unity, and to convince students who've never encountered even those definitions of the significance of what you're talking about. I second the sentiment of Willie's and Yemon's comments (to the original question): from the dismissive response you're giving to many answers just for involving a concept like, say, ultraproduct, I confess that it is not at all clear to me what you're after for these 30 minute talks. I'll try one more answer :-) – Ed Dean Apr 03 '11 at 21:27
2

The Gelfand-Naimark theorem: every commutative C* algebra is $C_0(X)$ for some locally compact Hausdorff space $X$.

  • The spectral theorem is a corollary.
  • The theorem introduces students to the idea that a ring is a geometric object
  • Certain constructions in topology, e.g. the Stone-Cech compactification, become more transparent.
Paul Siegel
  • 28,772
  • 2
    I know that playing “elementarier-than-thou” isn't really much fun, but how can you possibly conceive of this as a lecture with no prerequisites? For example, it seems doubtful that one could convince students (usefully) that a ring is a geometric object if they didn't first have the idea that a ring was an algebraic object …. – LSpice Apr 08 '11 at 18:09
  • +1. I don't study C*-algebras, but this is one of the prettiest theorems I know. This is definitely a "jewelry-type" theorem. On the other hand, the non-commutative analogue (GNS construction) lies at the foundation of the theory of operator algebras; I think most functional analysts would view this as a "tool-type" theorem. – Kevin Ventullo Apr 08 '11 at 19:12
  • Personally, I view it as a theorem telling me that (locally) compact Hausdorff spaces can be wild and savage beasts. Though as Paul says, it is the result which allows one to construct continuous functional calculus for normal elements in C*-algebras, and that is most definitely a useful "tool-type" theorem – Yemon Choi Apr 10 '11 at 09:18
  • 1
    @L Spice - Perhaps this one is a stretch, especially for a 30 minute talk. But I could imagine using this result as motivation for the abstract definition of a ring. One could start out by defining C_0(X) as just a set of functions and then start listing its extra structure. Then one can pose the question: how much structure do we need to pile on before we have enough information to recover X? I've never actually tried giving a talk like this, but it doesn't seem totally inconceivable. – Paul Siegel Apr 29 '11 at 02:10
2

My first choice was taken, Picard iteration using Fixed point principles. I'll try not to have a repeat. I have been teaching a history of math class this semester so this sort of thing has been on my mind recently.

I would definitely consider different choices depending on how advanced the students I expected were.

Pre-Calculus but talented: Archimedes method for finding $\pi$. Calculus: Fermat method for finding the integral of $x^n$ Differential Equations: Picard iterations/fixed point principles more advanced. The Brachistichrone.

Another topic that I like, specifically for analysis is to take some of the different definitions of continuity and show that they are equivalent.

2

I can just imagine what would have happened if I was introduced to Kepler's Conjecture and Thomas Hales' approach earlier ...

vonbrand
  • 101
pageman
  • 1,053
  • 1
    It is nice way to impress students, but I do not see anything useful, except a message "do not be afraid to do technical work". – Anton Petrunin Apr 08 '11 at 16:37
  • @Anton thanks for the comment :) actually that's the point - the students are from the a Game Development and Design course and we will soon have an Alienware laboratory - I might as well come up with something that they can put all that computing power to good use :) – pageman Apr 09 '11 at 14:10
2

Pursuant to Johannes's answer, I would like to give a talk entitled “How to factor $x_0^4 + x_1^4 + x_2^4 + x_3^4 - 2x_0^2 x_1^2 - 2x_0^2 x_2^2 - 2x_0^2 x_3^2 - 2x_1^2 x_2^2 - 2x_1^2 x_3^2 - 2x_2^2 x_3^2 - 8x_0 x_1 x_2 x_3$”.

LSpice
  • 11,423
2

Schur's Lemma. After which one can as an application, classify the simple modules for cyclic groups.

2

Fundamental Theorem of Finitely Generated Abelian Groups.

2

Integration by Parts It's a powerful analytical tool and it can be used for reduction of order on complex functions.

  • And it can also win you the national medal of science: http://mathoverflow.net/questions/53122/mathematical-urban-legends/60908#60908 :-) – Willie Wong Apr 13 '11 at 18:18
2

Jordan normal form.

Mark
  • 4,804
1

Consider some metric spaces, then Hausdorff distance and Gromov-hausdorff convergence

Also, introduce catagorical notation, it may be very useful.

kerzol
  • 335
  • 2
  • 11
1

Riesz theorem or, more general, Lax-Milgram theorem.

1

The Laplace approximation to integrals! This scores well on all points: it is elementary (could be taught in calculus 1) and very useful. Within 30 minutes there should be time to some application, dependent on the audience, maybe the Stirling approximation to the factorial (which is often useds without any proof).

Stefan Kohl
  • 19,498
  • 21
  • 73
  • 136
1

In a metric space context, using natural metric, construct reals as equivalence classes of Cauchy sequences of rationals.

1

Maybe a stretch, but...

Finiteness of the class number via Minkowski's theorem.

  • Everyone should at least have a rough idea what the class number is.
  • Minkowski's theorem has other amusing and useful applications (e.g. well-definedness of the signature?)
  • One of the first (of many) interesting theorems involving the geometry of lattices.
Paul Siegel
  • 28,772
1

Sperner's Theorem on antichains in subset lattice and the Sunflower Lemma. Two great theorems in combo which require little to no theory to introduce and have extremely beautiful proofs.

Andy
  • 1
1
  • I would go for Cayley's theorem which asserts that every group is isomorphic to a subgroup of $S_{n}$ for some $n$.

One, can even look into this following post:

C.S.
  • 4,735
0

Diamond lemma.

(Introduce rewiring systems, prove the diamond lemma and give couple of applications.)

0

Every matrix can be represented by the linear combinations of four orthogonal matrix

yaoxiao
  • 1,664
-1

Something that I found very interesting and very useful is Singular value decomposition. It shows that every operator is "almost diagnosable", and is skipped in a lot of basic linear algebra courses I have seen.

I has many application, for example - solving sum of least squares of example. You can give a 30 minute talk on this in various levels as well.

There are prettier theorems (Stokes, Uniformization, and many more) but I think with the 3 constraints (interesting, useful, little background) this is a good topic.

  • 5
    Singular value decomposition has already been suggested. http://mathoverflow.net/questions/60457/elementaryshortuseful/60504#60504 So has Stokes http://mathoverflow.net/questions/60457/elementaryshortuseful/60479#60479 – Willie Wong Apr 08 '11 at 18:50
-3

Yoneda Lemma. :D

fosco
  • 13,100
  • 6
    Someone else has already suggested this. http://mathoverflow.net/questions/60457/elementaryshortuseful/60671#60671 – Willie Wong Apr 07 '11 at 14:54