Hilbert's problems are 23 problems in mathematics published by German mathematician David Hilbert in 1900. They were all unsolved at the time, and several proved to be very influential for 20th-century mathematics. Hilbert presented ten of the problems (1, 2, 6, 7, 8, 13, 16, 19, 21, and 22) at the Paris conference of the International Congress of Mathematicians, speaking on August 8 at the Sorbonne. The complete list of 23 problems was published later, in English translation in 1902 by Mary Frances Winston Newson in the Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society.[1] Earlier publications (in the original German) appeared in Archiv der Mathematik und Physik.[2]
Of the cleanly formulated Hilbert problems, numbers 3, 7, 10, 14, 17, 18, 19, 21, and 20 have resolutions that are accepted by consensus of the mathematical community. Problems 1, 2, 5, 6,[a] 9, 11, 12, 15, and 22 have solutions that have partial acceptance, but there exists some controversy as to whether they resolve the problems. That leaves 8 (the Riemann hypothesis), 13 and 16[b] unresolved. Problems 4 and 23 are considered as too vague to ever be described as solved; the withdrawn 24 would also be in this class.
Hilbert originally included 24 problems on his list, but decided against including one of them in the published list. The "24th problem" (in proof theory, on a criterion for simplicity and general methods) was rediscovered in Hilbert's original manuscript notes by German historian Rüdiger Thiele in 2000.[3]
Nature and influence of the problems
Hilbert's problems ranged greatly in topic and precision. Some of them, like the 3rd problem, which was the first to be solved, or the 8th problem (the Riemann hypothesis), which still remains unresolved, were presented precisely enough to enable a clear affirmative or negative answer. For other problems, such as the 5th, experts have traditionally agreed on a single interpretation, and a solution to the accepted interpretation has been given, but closely related unsolved problems exist. Some of Hilbert's statements were not precise enough to specify a particular problem, but were suggestive enough that certain problems of contemporary nature seem to apply; for example, most modern number theorists would probably see the 9th problem as referring to the conjecturalLanglands correspondence on representations of the absolute Galois group of a number field.[4] Still other problems, such as the 11th and the 16th, concern what are now flourishing mathematical subdisciplines, like the theories of quadratic forms and real algebraic curves.
There are two problems that are not only unresolved but may in fact be unresolvable by modern standards. The 6th problem concerns the axiomatization of physics, a goal that 20th-century developments seem to render both more remote and less important than in Hilbert's time. Also, the 4th problem concerns the foundations of geometry, in a manner that is now generally judged to be too vague to enable a definitive answer.
The 23rd problem was purposefully set as a general indication by Hilbert to highlight the calculus of variations as an underappreciated and understudied field. In the lecture introducing these problems, Hilbert made the following introductory remark to the 23rd problem:
"So far, I have generally mentioned problems as definite and special as possible, in the opinion that it is just such definite and special problems that attract us the most and from which the most lasting influence is often exerted upon science. Nevertheless, I should like to close with a general problem, namely with the indication of a branch of mathematics repeatedly mentioned in this lecture—which, in spite of the considerable advancement lately given it by Weierstrass, does not receive the general appreciation which, in my opinion, is its due—I mean the calculus of variations."
The other 21 problems have all received significant attention, and late into the 20th century work on these problems was still considered to be of the greatest importance. Paul Cohen received the Fields Medal in 1966 for his work on the first problem, and the negative solution of the tenth problem in 1970 by Yuri Matiyasevich (completing work by Julia Robinson, Hilary Putnam, and Martin Davis) generated similar acclaim. Aspects of these problems are still of great interest today.
However, Gödel's second incompleteness theorem gives a precise sense in which such a finitistic proof of the consistency of arithmetic is provably impossible. Hilbert lived for 12 years after Kurt Gödel published his theorem, but does not seem to have written any formal response to Gödel's work.[d][e]
Hilbert's tenth problem does not ask whether there exists an algorithm for deciding the solvability of Diophantine equations, but rather asks for the construction of such an algorithm: "to devise a process according to which it can be determined in a finite number of operations whether the equation is solvable in rational integers". That this problem was solved by showing that there cannot be any such algorithm contradicted Hilbert's philosophy of mathematics.
In discussing his opinion that every mathematical problem should have a solution, Hilbert allows for the possibility that the solution could be a proof that the original problem is impossible.[f] He stated that the point is to know one way or the other what the solution is, and he believed that we always can know this, that in mathematics there is not any "ignorabimus" (statement whose truth can never be known).[g] It seems unclear whether he would have regarded the solution of the tenth problem as an instance of ignorabimus.
On the other hand, the status of the first and second problems is even more complicated: there is no clear mathematical consensus as to whether the results of Gödel (in the case of the second problem), or Gödel and Cohen (in the case of the first problem) give definitive negative solutions or not, since these solutions apply to a certain formalization of the problems, which is not necessarily the only possible one.[h]
Follow-ups
Since 1900, mathematicians and mathematical organizations have announced problem lists but, with few exceptions, these have not had nearly as much influence nor generated as much work as Hilbert's problems.
One exception consists of three conjectures made by André Weil in the late 1940s (the Weil conjectures). In the fields of algebraic geometry, number theory and the links between the two, the Weil conjectures were very important.[8][9] The first of these was proved by Bernard Dwork; a completely different proof of the first two, via ℓ-adic cohomology, was given by Alexander Grothendieck. The last and deepest of the Weil conjectures (an analogue of the Riemann hypothesis) was proved by Pierre Deligne. Both Grothendieck and Deligne were awarded the Fields medal. However, the Weil conjectures were, in their scope, more like a single Hilbert problem, and Weil never intended them as a programme for all mathematics. This is somewhat ironic, since arguably Weil was the mathematician of the 1940s and 1950s who best played the Hilbert role, being conversant with nearly all areas of (theoretical) mathematics and having figured importantly in the development of many of them.
Paul Erdős posed hundreds, if not thousands, of mathematical problems, many of them profound. Erdős often offered monetary rewards; the size of the reward depended on the perceived difficulty of the problem.[10]
The end of the millennium, which was also the centennial of Hilbert's announcement of his problems, provided a natural occasion to propose "a new set of Hilbert problems". Several mathematicians accepted the challenge, notably Fields Medalist Steve Smale, who responded to a request by Vladimir Arnold to propose a list of 18 problems (Smale's problems).
At least in the mainstream media, the de facto 21st century analogue of Hilbert's problems is the list of seven Millennium Prize Problems chosen during 2000 by the Clay Mathematics Institute. Unlike the Hilbert problems, where the primary award was the admiration of Hilbert in particular and mathematicians in general, each prize problem includes a million-dollar bounty. As with the Hilbert problems, one of the prize problems (the Poincaré conjecture) was solved relatively soon after the problems were announced.
The Riemann hypothesis is noteworthy for its appearance on the list of Hilbert problems, Smale's list, the list of Millennium Prize Problems, and even the Weil conjectures, in its geometric guise. Although it has been attacked by major mathematicians of our day, many experts believe that it will still be part of unsolved problems lists for many centuries. Hilbert himself declared: "If I were to awaken after having slept for a thousand years, my first question would be: Has the Riemann hypothesis been proved?"[11]
In 2008, DARPA announced its own list of 23 problems that it hoped could lead to major mathematical breakthroughs, "thereby strengthening the scientific and technological capabilities of the DoD".[12][13] The DARPA list also includes a few problems from Hilbert's list, e.g. the Riemann hypothesis.
Table of problems
Hilbert's 23 problems are (for details on the solutions and references, see the articles that are linked to in the first column):
Proven to be impossible to prove or disprove within Zermelo–Fraenkel set theory with or without the axiom of choice (provided Zermelo–Fraenkel set theory is consistent, i.e., it does not contain a contradiction). There is no consensus on whether this is a solution to the problem.
There is no consensus on whether results of Gödel and Gentzen give a solution to the problem as stated by Hilbert. Gödel's second incompleteness theorem, proved in 1931, shows that no proof of its consistency can be carried out within arithmetic itself. Gentzen proved in 1936 that the consistency of arithmetic follows from the well-foundedness of the ordinal ε0.
Given any two polyhedra of equal volume, is it always possible to cut the first into finitely many polyhedral pieces that can be reassembled to yield the second?
Resolved by Andrew Gleason, assuming one interpretation of the original statement. If, however, it is understood as an equivalent of the Hilbert–Smith conjecture, it is still unsolved.
(a) axiomatic treatment of probability with limit theorems for foundation of statistical physics
(b) the rigorous theory of limiting processes "which lead from the atomistic view to the laws of motion of continua"
Unresolved, or partially resolved, depending on how the original statement is interpreted.[14] Items (a) and (b) were two specific problems given by Hilbert in a later explanation.[1]Kolmogorov's axiomatics (1933) is now accepted as standard for the foundations of probability theory. There is some success on the way from the "atomistic view to the laws of motion of continua",[15] but the transition from classical to quantum physics means that there would have to be two axiomatic formulations, with a clear link between them. John von Neumann made an early attempt to place quantum mechanics on a rigorous mathematical basis in his book Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Mechanics,[16] but subsequent developments have occurred, further challenging the axiomatic foundations of quantum physics.
Widely believed to be resolved, by computer-assisted proof (by Thomas Callister Hales). Result: Highest density achieved by close packings, each with density approximately 74%, such as face-centered cubic close packing and hexagonal close packing.[k]
^Number 6 is now considered a problem in physics rather than in mathematics.
^Some authors consider this problem as too vague to ever be described as solved, although there is still active research on it.
^See Nagel and Newman revised by Hofstadter (2001, p. 107),[6] footnote 37: "Moreover, although most specialists in mathematical logic do not question the cogency of [Gentzen's] proof, it is not finitistic in the sense of Hilbert's original stipulations for an absolute proof of consistency." Also see next page: "But these proofs [Gentzen's et al.] cannot be mirrored inside the systems that they concern, and, since they are not finitistic, they do not achieve the proclaimed objectives of Hilbert's original program." Hofstadter rewrote the original (1958) footnote slightly, changing the word "students" to "specialists in mathematical logic". And this point is discussed again on page 109[6] and was not modified there by Hofstadter (p. 108).[6]
^Reid reports that upon hearing about "Gödel's work from Bernays, he was 'somewhat angry'. ... At first he was only angry and frustrated, but then he began to try to deal constructively with the problem. ... It was not yet clear just what influence Gödel's work would ultimately have" (p. 198–199).[7] Reid notes that in two papers in 1931 Hilbert proposed a different form of induction called "unendliche Induktion" (p. 199).[7]
^Reid's biography of Hilbert, written during the 1960s from interviews and letters, reports that "Godel (who never had any correspondence with Hilbert) feels that Hilbert's scheme for the foundations of mathematics 'remains highly interesting and important in spite of my negative results' (p. 217). Observe the use of present tense – she reports that Gödel and Bernays among others "answered my questions about Hilbert's work in logic and foundations" (p. vii).[7]
^This issue that finds its beginnings in the "foundational crisis" of the early 20th century, in particular the controversy about under what circumstances could the Law of Excluded Middle be employed in proofs. See much more at Brouwer–Hilbert controversy.
^"This conviction of the solvability of every mathematical problem is a powerful incentive to the worker. We hear within us the perpetual call: There is the problem. Seek its solution. You can find it by pure reason, for in mathematics there is no ignorabimus." (Hilbert, 1902, p. 445)
^Nagel, Newman and Hofstadter discuss this issue: "The possibility of constructing a finitistic absolute proof of consistency for a formal system such as Principia Mathematica is not excluded by Gödel's results. ... His argument does not eliminate the possibility ... But no one today appears to have a clear idea of what a finitistic proof would be like that is not capable of being mirrored inside Principia Mathematica (footnote 39, page 109). The authors conclude that the prospect "is most unlikely".[6]
^According to Gray, most of the problems have been solved. Some were not defined completely, but enough progress has been made to consider them "solved"; Gray lists the fourth problem as too vague to say whether it has been solved.
^It is not difficult to show that the problem has a partial solution within the space of single-valued analytic functions (Raudenbush). Some authors argue that Hilbert intended for a solution within the space of (multi-valued) algebraic functions, thus continuing his own work on algebraic functions and being a question about a possible extension of the Galois theory (see, for example, Abhyankar[19] Vitushkin,[20] Chebotarev,[21] and others). It appears from one of Hilbert's papers[22] that this was his original intention for the problem.
The language of Hilbert there is "Existenz von algebraischen Funktionen" ("existence of algebraic functions").
As such, the problem is still unresolved.
^Gray also lists the 18th problem as "open" in his 2000 book, because the sphere-packing problem (also known as the Kepler conjecture) was unsolved, but a solution to it has now been claimed.
^Hilbert, David (1900). "Mathematische Probleme". Nachrichten von der Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen, Mathematisch-Physikalische Klasse (News of the Society of Sciences at Göttingen, Mathematical-Physical Class) (in German): 253–297. and Hilbert, David (1901). "Mathematische Probleme". Archiv der Mathematik und Physik. 3rd series (in German). 1: 44–63, 213–237.
^van Heijenoort, Jean, ed. (1976) [1966]. From Frege to Gödel: A source book in mathematical logic, 1879–1931 ((pbk.) ed.). Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press. pp. 464ff. ISBN978-0-674-32449-7. A reliable source of Hilbert's axiomatic system, his comments on them and on the foundational 'crisis' that was on-going at the time (translated into English), appears as Hilbert's 'The Foundations of Mathematics' (1927).
^Browder, Felix E. (1976). Mathematical developments arising from Hilbert problems. Providence: American Mathematical Society. ISBN0-8218-1428-1. OCLC2331329.
^Chung, Fan R. K.; Graham, Ronald L. (1999-06-01). Erdös on Graphs: his legacy of unsolved problems. Natick, Mass: A K Peters/CRC Press. ISBN978-1-56881-111-6. OCLC42809520.
^Clawson, Calvin C. (8 December 1999). Mathematical Mysteries: The beauty and magic of numbers. Basic Books. p. 258. ISBN9780738202594. LCCN99-066854.
^Corry, L. (1997). "David Hilbert and the axiomatization of physics (1894–1905)". Arch. Hist. Exact Sci. 51 (2): 83–198. doi:10.1007/BF00375141. S2CID122709777.
^Morozov, Vladimir V. (1954). "О некоторых вопросах проблемы резольвент" [On certain questions of the problem of resolvents]. Proceedings of Kazan University (in Russian). 114 (2). Kazan University: 173–187.
^Gilbarg, David; Trudinger, Neil S. (2001-01-12). Elliptic Partial Differential Equations of Second Order. Berlin New York: Springer Science & Business Media. ISBN978-3-540-41160-4.
^Serrin, James (1969-05-08). "The problem of Dirichlet for quasilinear elliptic differential equations with many independent variables". Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series A, Mathematical and Physical Sciences. 264 (1153): 413–496. Bibcode:1969RSPTA.264..413S. doi:10.1098/rsta.1969.0033. ISSN0080-4614.
^Bolibrukh, A.A. (1992). "Sufficient conditions for the positive solvability of the Riemann-Hilbert problem". Matematicheskie Zametki (in Russian). 51 (2): 110–117. doi:10.1007/BF02102113. MR1165460. S2CID121743184.
Dawson, John W.; Gödel, Kurt (1997). Logical dilemmas: the life and work of Kurt Gödel (Reprint ed.). Wellesley, Mass: Peters. ISBN978-1-56881-256-4. A wealth of information relevant to Hilbert's "program" and Gödel's impact on the Second Question, the impact of Arend Heyting's and Brouwer's Intuitionism on Hilbert's philosophy.
Browder, Felix Earl (1976). "Mathematical Developments Arising from Hilbert Problems". In Browder, Felix E. (ed.). Proceedings of Symposia in Pure Mathematics XXVIII. Providence (R.I): American Mathematical Society. ISBN978-0-8218-1428-4. A collection of survey essays by experts devoted to each of the 23 problems emphasizing current developments.
Matijasevič, Jurij V.; Matijasevič, Jurij V. (1993). Hilbert's tenth problem. Foundations of computing (3. ed.). Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. ISBN978-0-262-13295-4. An account at the undergraduate level by the mathematician who completed the solution of the problem.
External links
Wikisource has original text related to this article:
