Jump to content

Talk:Brouwer fixed-point theorem

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Deacon Vorbis (talk | contribs) at 00:32, 11 March 2020 (→Function mapping in closedness section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
WikiProject iconMathematics B‑class High‑priority
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Mathematics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mathematics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MathematicsWikipedia:WikiProject MathematicsTemplate:WikiProject Mathematicsmathematics
BThis article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
HighThis article has been rated as High-priority on the project's priority scale.

Accessible proof

Courant and Robbins provide an accessible proof. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.144.199.xxx (talk • contribs) 30 August 2001

First proved by Bol?

According to Lyusternik Convex Figures and Polyhedra, the theorem was first proved by a Lettish mathematician named Bol. No references are provided. Anyone know what this is about?--192.35.35.36 00:08, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Brouwer fixed-point theorem. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:52, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Constructive proof"?

The article sais "The first algorithm to construct a fixed point was proposed by H. Scarf." and also "Kellogg, Li, and Yorke turned Hirsch's proof into a constructive proof by observing that..."
I'm wondering if it's indeed a constructive proof, since Brower's theorem for one dimension is equivalent to intermediate value theorem, which does not admit a constructive proof.
See for example this discussion in MathOverflow. Nachi (talk) 16:58, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is a symptom of different people using "constructive" to mean different things. The paper by Kellog, Li, and York really is titled "A Constructive Proof of the Brouwer Fixed-Point Theorem and Computational Results". But they are working in numerical analysis, not in constructive mathematics. So perhaps all that they mean by 'constructive proof' is that their proof can be used to obtain a numerical algorithm to approximate a fixed point. I am not completely sure what they mean by constructive, though, as I look at their paper. They also assume that the map is not only continuous, but twice differentiable. In the sense of many branches of constructive mathematics, it is known that the fixed point theorem implies nonconstructive principles such as LLPO, and so the fixed point theorem is not constructive in the sense of those branches. — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:25, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the answer. It makes it clear.
Unless I completely not aware of the usual use of "constructive" in mathematics, I guess the best way to describe KLY version of Hirsch's proof is simply write "numerical algorithm" or "computable method", instead of "constructive". Also in the description of Scarf's proof the word "construct" should be replaced by "calculate". Nachi (talk) 20:25, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Citation style

This article mixes parenthetical referencing with footnoted references. The parenthetical ones were there first, so according to WP:CITEVAR we'd have to use that until explicit consensus. However, it would be significantly easier to turn the couple of parenthetical ones into footnotes than about 50 footnotes into parentheticals. Can we form consensus to continued using footnoted references? – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:59, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure that'd be okay here. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 00:04, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Great. I've turned the remaining parentheticals into footnotes. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:10, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Function mapping in closedness section

It is stated that the function f(x) = (x+1)/2 is a continous function from the open interval (-1,1) to itself. Is it not the case that the function maps from (-1,1) to (0,1)? Salomonaber (talk) 00:13, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't claim (nor is it required) that the function is surjective, so what's there is correct and appropriate. The example could have even arranged for a bijection, but I don't think it matters much either way. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 00:32, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Brouwer_fixed-point_theorem&oldid=944968346"