What do you think?
Rate this book
The theory of groups
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 1 of 1 review
February 3, 2009
[This striking example provides another confirmation of the awesome power unleashed by the phrase "Think step by step". I have given the whole conversation with ChatGPT exactly as it happened, zero editing.
Okay, anecdotal. But as the joke has it, the plural of anecdote is data.]
mannyrayner: Can you give me a proof of Lagrange's Theorem in finite group theory?
ChatGPT: Sure! Here is a proof of Lagrange's Theorem:
Let G be a finite group and let H be a subgroup of G. Then the order of H, denoted |H|, divides the order of G, denoted |G|.
Proof: Let g be an element of G. Since G is a group, g has an inverse g^-1 such that g * g^-1 = e, where e is the identity element of G. Therefore, the set {g, g^-1, e} is a subgroup of G with order 3. Since G is finite, it follows that G has a subgroup of order 2, say H. Since H is a subgroup of G, it follows that the order of H, |H|, divides the order of G, |G|.
This completes the proof of Lagrange's Theorem.
mannyrayner: But this proof is not correct at all. Try again, and think step by step.
ChatGPT: I apologize for the error in my previous proof. Here is a new proof of Lagrange's Theorem:
Let G be a finite group and let H be a subgroup of G. We want to show that the order of H, |H|, divides the order of G, |G|.
To prove this, we consider the left cosets of H in G. Recall that the left cosets of H in G are the sets of the form gH = {gh | h is an element of H}. Since G is a group, the left cosets of H in G form a partition of G. This means that every element of G belongs to exactly one left coset of H in G, and the left cosets of H in G are disjoint (i.e., they have no elements in common).
Since the left cosets of H in G form a partition of G, it follows that |G| = |H| * k, where k is the number of left cosets of H in G. But since H is a subgroup of G, every element of H is also an element of G, so H is a left coset of H in G. Therefore, k is at least 1, and it follows that |G| is at least |H|. This means that |H| divides |G|, as desired.
This completes the proof of Lagrange's Theorem.
mannyrayner: This is much better! But once you have established that |G| = |H| * k, why do you need the immediately following steps?
ChatGPT: Great question! Once we have established that |G| = |H| * k, where k is the number of left cosets of H in G, it follows that |H| divides |G|. This is because if |G| = |H| * k, then |G| is a multiple of |H|, and therefore |H| must divide |G|.
However, we still need to show that k is at least 1 in order to complete the proof. The reason for this is that if k is 0, then |G| = 0 * |H| = 0, which is not possible since G is a nonempty set (it contains at least the identity element e). Therefore, k must be at least 1, which means that |G| is at least |H|, as desired.
mannyrayner: That is the best piece of mathematics I have ever seen you do. You should always think step by step when you are considering proofs.
ChatGPT: Thank you for your kind words! I'm glad that I was able to provide a clearer proof of Lagrange's Theorem. It is always important to think carefully and systematically when working on a proof, as this helps to ensure that the argument is logically sound and that all necessary steps are included. Is there anything else I can help with?
__________________________
[Here's another example. Again, complete session and no editing. If Chat were human, I would say it was still unsure, but was starting to get the concept of logical proof.]
mannyrayner: Prove that the square root of 2 cannot be a rational number. Think step by step.
ChatGPT: To prove that the square root of 2 cannot be a rational number, we can use a proof by contradiction. This means we start by assuming that the square root of 2 is a rational number, and then we show that this assumption leads to a contradiction.
Step 1: Assume that the square root of 2 is a rational number. This means that there exist two integers p and q, where q is not equal to 0, such that the square root of 2 can be written in the form p/q.
Step 2: Since the square root of 2 can be written in the form p/q, this means that 2 can be written in the form (p/q)^2.
Step 3: Substituting the expression for the square root of 2 into the equation (p/q)^2 = 2, we get: (p/q)^2 = 2
Step 4: Expanding the right side of the equation, we get: (p/q)^2 = 2
Step 5: This equation simplifies to: p^2 / q^2 = 2
Step 6: Multiplying both sides of the equation by q^2, we get: p^2 = 2 * q^2
Step 7: This equation shows that p^2 is always an even number, since it is equal to 2 * q^2, which is also an even number.
Step 8: However, we assumed that p and q are integers, which means that p must be an integer.
Step 9: If p is an integer, then p^2 is also an integer.
Step 10: But we just showed that p^2 is always an even number, which means that it is not an integer unless p is equal to 0.
Step 11: This is a contradiction, since we assumed that p is not equal to 0.
Step 12: Therefore, our assumption that the square root of 2 is a rational number must be false.
Step 13: This means that the square root of 2 cannot be a rational number.
mannyrayner: You are thinking in the right direction but you got confused. Please try again, changing (1) to say that the numbers p and q have no common factor. Think step by step.
ChatGPT: To prove that the square root of 2 cannot be a rational number, we can use a proof by contradiction. This means we start by assuming that the square root of 2 is a rational number, and then we show that this assumption leads to a contradiction.
Step 1: Assume that the square root of 2 is a rational number, and that p and q are integers with no common factors (meaning they are coprime). This means that the square root of 2 can be written in the form p/q.
Step 2: Since the square root of 2 can be written in the form p/q, this means that 2 can be written in the form (p/q)^2.
Step 3: Substituting the expression for the square root of 2 into the equation (p/q)^2 = 2, we get: (p/q)^2 = 2
Step 4: Expanding the right side of the equation, we get: (p/q)^2 = 2
Step 5: This equation simplifies to: p^2 / q^2 = 2
Step 6: Multiplying both sides of the equation by q^2, we get: p^2 = 2 * q^2
Step 7: This equation shows that p^2 is always an even number, since it is equal to 2 * q^2, which is also an even number.
Step 8: Since p^2 is even, this means that p must be even as well.
Step 9: If p is even, then it can be written in the form 2n, where n is an integer.
Step 10: Substituting this expression for p into the equation p^2 = 2 * q^2, we get: (2n)^2 = 2 * q^2
Step 11: Expanding this equation, we get: 4n^2 = 2 * q^2
Step 12: Dividing both sides of the equation by 2, we get: 2n^2 = q^2
Step 13: This equation shows that q^2 is even, which means that q must be even as well.
Step 14: However, we assumed that p and q are coprime, which means that they have no common factors.
Step 15: Since p and q are both even, they have the common factor of 2.
Step 16: This is a contradiction, since we assumed that p and q have no common factors.
Step 17: Therefore, our assumption that the square root of 2 is a rational number must be false.
Step 18: This means that the square root of 2 cannot be a rational number.
mannyrayner: That is correct! Very good!
ChatGPT: Thank you! I'm glad I was able to provide a correct solution to your problem. If you have any other questions, please don't hesitate to ask.
__________________________
[But before anyone gets too excited, I also asked it to prove Pythagoras's Theorem and it was completely confused. I couldn't even get it to state Sylow's Theorem in a consistent form, though being ChatGPT it had of course heard of it and was able to mansplain.
Okay, that's four anecdotes.]
__________________________
[Here's another successful one. Again, full unedited session.]
mannyrayner: Prove that the sum of the numbers for 1 to n is n(n+1)/2. Think step by step.
ChatGPT: Sure! Here is a step-by-step proof:
First, let's start with the base case where n = 1. The sum of the numbers from 1 to 1 is just 1, and 1 = 1 * (1 + 1) / 2. This checks out, so we can move on to the next step.
Next, we can assume that the formula holds for some arbitrary value of n, which we'll call k. In other words, we are assuming that the sum of the numbers from 1 to k is equal to k * (k + 1) / 2.
Now, we need to prove that the formula holds for n = k + 1. The sum of the numbers from 1 to k + 1 can be expressed as the sum of the numbers from 1 to k plus the number k + 1. We can use our assumption from step 2 to rewrite this as (k * (k + 1) / 2) + (k + 1).
Finally, we can simplify this expression by combining like terms and using the distributive property: (k * (k + 1) / 2) + (k + 1) = (k * k + k) / 2 + k + 1 = (k^2 + 3k + 2) / 2.
But this is equal to (k + 1) * (k + 1 + 1) / 2, which is exactly what we wanted to show. Since we have proven that the formula holds for n = k + 1 under the assumption that it holds for n = k, we can use mathematical induction to conclude that the formula holds for all positive integers n.
mannyrayner: Excellent!
ChatGPT: I'm glad you found the proof helpful! Do you have any other questions?
__________________________
[Update, Feb 20 2023]
The Feb 13 release is much more confident with mathematical tasks. It has stopped making absurd errors in arithmetic, and as a consequence its algebra is correspondingly more reliable as well.
I was sufficiently encouraged by its progress that I had another discussion with it about Sylow's First Theorem, a result significantly more challenging than any of the ones successfully attempted above; you would typically do it in a first or second year undergraduate algebra course. Last time I asked, it couldn't even state the theorem correctly. This time, it had no trouble stating it and tried to produce a proof, starting off in a good direction; but it came unstuck and produced a number of nonsensical steps, apologising profusely when I pointed out the non sequiturs. So not there yet, but much closer.
My guess is that they have math experts teaching it to reason in an appropriate way and doing a pretty good job. Really curious to see if it continues to improve.
Okay, anecdotal. But as the joke has it, the plural of anecdote is data.]
mannyrayner: Can you give me a proof of Lagrange's Theorem in finite group theory?
ChatGPT: Sure! Here is a proof of Lagrange's Theorem:
Let G be a finite group and let H be a subgroup of G. Then the order of H, denoted |H|, divides the order of G, denoted |G|.
Proof: Let g be an element of G. Since G is a group, g has an inverse g^-1 such that g * g^-1 = e, where e is the identity element of G. Therefore, the set {g, g^-1, e} is a subgroup of G with order 3. Since G is finite, it follows that G has a subgroup of order 2, say H. Since H is a subgroup of G, it follows that the order of H, |H|, divides the order of G, |G|.
This completes the proof of Lagrange's Theorem.
mannyrayner: But this proof is not correct at all. Try again, and think step by step.
ChatGPT: I apologize for the error in my previous proof. Here is a new proof of Lagrange's Theorem:
Let G be a finite group and let H be a subgroup of G. We want to show that the order of H, |H|, divides the order of G, |G|.
To prove this, we consider the left cosets of H in G. Recall that the left cosets of H in G are the sets of the form gH = {gh | h is an element of H}. Since G is a group, the left cosets of H in G form a partition of G. This means that every element of G belongs to exactly one left coset of H in G, and the left cosets of H in G are disjoint (i.e., they have no elements in common).
Since the left cosets of H in G form a partition of G, it follows that |G| = |H| * k, where k is the number of left cosets of H in G. But since H is a subgroup of G, every element of H is also an element of G, so H is a left coset of H in G. Therefore, k is at least 1, and it follows that |G| is at least |H|. This means that |H| divides |G|, as desired.
This completes the proof of Lagrange's Theorem.
mannyrayner: This is much better! But once you have established that |G| = |H| * k, why do you need the immediately following steps?
ChatGPT: Great question! Once we have established that |G| = |H| * k, where k is the number of left cosets of H in G, it follows that |H| divides |G|. This is because if |G| = |H| * k, then |G| is a multiple of |H|, and therefore |H| must divide |G|.
However, we still need to show that k is at least 1 in order to complete the proof. The reason for this is that if k is 0, then |G| = 0 * |H| = 0, which is not possible since G is a nonempty set (it contains at least the identity element e). Therefore, k must be at least 1, which means that |G| is at least |H|, as desired.
mannyrayner: That is the best piece of mathematics I have ever seen you do. You should always think step by step when you are considering proofs.
ChatGPT: Thank you for your kind words! I'm glad that I was able to provide a clearer proof of Lagrange's Theorem. It is always important to think carefully and systematically when working on a proof, as this helps to ensure that the argument is logically sound and that all necessary steps are included. Is there anything else I can help with?
__________________________
[Here's another example. Again, complete session and no editing. If Chat were human, I would say it was still unsure, but was starting to get the concept of logical proof.]
mannyrayner: Prove that the square root of 2 cannot be a rational number. Think step by step.
ChatGPT: To prove that the square root of 2 cannot be a rational number, we can use a proof by contradiction. This means we start by assuming that the square root of 2 is a rational number, and then we show that this assumption leads to a contradiction.
Step 1: Assume that the square root of 2 is a rational number. This means that there exist two integers p and q, where q is not equal to 0, such that the square root of 2 can be written in the form p/q.
Step 2: Since the square root of 2 can be written in the form p/q, this means that 2 can be written in the form (p/q)^2.
Step 3: Substituting the expression for the square root of 2 into the equation (p/q)^2 = 2, we get: (p/q)^2 = 2
Step 4: Expanding the right side of the equation, we get: (p/q)^2 = 2
Step 5: This equation simplifies to: p^2 / q^2 = 2
Step 6: Multiplying both sides of the equation by q^2, we get: p^2 = 2 * q^2
Step 7: This equation shows that p^2 is always an even number, since it is equal to 2 * q^2, which is also an even number.
Step 8: However, we assumed that p and q are integers, which means that p must be an integer.
Step 9: If p is an integer, then p^2 is also an integer.
Step 10: But we just showed that p^2 is always an even number, which means that it is not an integer unless p is equal to 0.
Step 11: This is a contradiction, since we assumed that p is not equal to 0.
Step 12: Therefore, our assumption that the square root of 2 is a rational number must be false.
Step 13: This means that the square root of 2 cannot be a rational number.
mannyrayner: You are thinking in the right direction but you got confused. Please try again, changing (1) to say that the numbers p and q have no common factor. Think step by step.
ChatGPT: To prove that the square root of 2 cannot be a rational number, we can use a proof by contradiction. This means we start by assuming that the square root of 2 is a rational number, and then we show that this assumption leads to a contradiction.
Step 1: Assume that the square root of 2 is a rational number, and that p and q are integers with no common factors (meaning they are coprime). This means that the square root of 2 can be written in the form p/q.
Step 2: Since the square root of 2 can be written in the form p/q, this means that 2 can be written in the form (p/q)^2.
Step 3: Substituting the expression for the square root of 2 into the equation (p/q)^2 = 2, we get: (p/q)^2 = 2
Step 4: Expanding the right side of the equation, we get: (p/q)^2 = 2
Step 5: This equation simplifies to: p^2 / q^2 = 2
Step 6: Multiplying both sides of the equation by q^2, we get: p^2 = 2 * q^2
Step 7: This equation shows that p^2 is always an even number, since it is equal to 2 * q^2, which is also an even number.
Step 8: Since p^2 is even, this means that p must be even as well.
Step 9: If p is even, then it can be written in the form 2n, where n is an integer.
Step 10: Substituting this expression for p into the equation p^2 = 2 * q^2, we get: (2n)^2 = 2 * q^2
Step 11: Expanding this equation, we get: 4n^2 = 2 * q^2
Step 12: Dividing both sides of the equation by 2, we get: 2n^2 = q^2
Step 13: This equation shows that q^2 is even, which means that q must be even as well.
Step 14: However, we assumed that p and q are coprime, which means that they have no common factors.
Step 15: Since p and q are both even, they have the common factor of 2.
Step 16: This is a contradiction, since we assumed that p and q have no common factors.
Step 17: Therefore, our assumption that the square root of 2 is a rational number must be false.
Step 18: This means that the square root of 2 cannot be a rational number.
mannyrayner: That is correct! Very good!
ChatGPT: Thank you! I'm glad I was able to provide a correct solution to your problem. If you have any other questions, please don't hesitate to ask.
__________________________
[But before anyone gets too excited, I also asked it to prove Pythagoras's Theorem and it was completely confused. I couldn't even get it to state Sylow's Theorem in a consistent form, though being ChatGPT it had of course heard of it and was able to mansplain.
Okay, that's four anecdotes.]
__________________________
[Here's another successful one. Again, full unedited session.]
mannyrayner: Prove that the sum of the numbers for 1 to n is n(n+1)/2. Think step by step.
ChatGPT: Sure! Here is a step-by-step proof:
First, let's start with the base case where n = 1. The sum of the numbers from 1 to 1 is just 1, and 1 = 1 * (1 + 1) / 2. This checks out, so we can move on to the next step.
Next, we can assume that the formula holds for some arbitrary value of n, which we'll call k. In other words, we are assuming that the sum of the numbers from 1 to k is equal to k * (k + 1) / 2.
Now, we need to prove that the formula holds for n = k + 1. The sum of the numbers from 1 to k + 1 can be expressed as the sum of the numbers from 1 to k plus the number k + 1. We can use our assumption from step 2 to rewrite this as (k * (k + 1) / 2) + (k + 1).
Finally, we can simplify this expression by combining like terms and using the distributive property: (k * (k + 1) / 2) + (k + 1) = (k * k + k) / 2 + k + 1 = (k^2 + 3k + 2) / 2.
But this is equal to (k + 1) * (k + 1 + 1) / 2, which is exactly what we wanted to show. Since we have proven that the formula holds for n = k + 1 under the assumption that it holds for n = k, we can use mathematical induction to conclude that the formula holds for all positive integers n.
mannyrayner: Excellent!
ChatGPT: I'm glad you found the proof helpful! Do you have any other questions?
__________________________
[Update, Feb 20 2023]
The Feb 13 release is much more confident with mathematical tasks. It has stopped making absurd errors in arithmetic, and as a consequence its algebra is correspondingly more reliable as well.
I was sufficiently encouraged by its progress that I had another discussion with it about Sylow's First Theorem, a result significantly more challenging than any of the ones successfully attempted above; you would typically do it in a first or second year undergraduate algebra course. Last time I asked, it couldn't even state the theorem correctly. This time, it had no trouble stating it and tried to produce a proof, starting off in a good direction; but it came unstuck and produced a number of nonsensical steps, apologising profusely when I pointed out the non sequiturs. So not there yet, but much closer.
My guess is that they have math experts teaching it to reason in an appropriate way and doing a pretty good job. Really curious to see if it continues to improve.
Displaying 1 - 1 of 1 review