Standardmäßig ist der Prompt ausgewählt, der zuerst die Quelle prüft. Sie können zu einem direkten Befehl wechseln oder eine lokale Kopie herunterladen.
Quelldateien prüfen
Lesen Sie SKILL.md und alle von SkillsMP angezeigten Begleitdateien, bevor Sie sich für eine Installation entscheiden.
Mit Codex oder Claude installieren Kopieren Sie diesen Prompt, fügen Sie ihn in Codex, Claude oder einen anderen Assistant ein und lassen Sie die Skill-Seite prüfen und installieren.
Ein direkter Befehl überspringt den Prüf-Prompt. Prüfen Sie die Quelle, bevor Sie ihn ausführen.
Conjecture generation, sequence analysis, and experimental mathematics for mathematical discovery. Covers sequence analysis (OEIS lookups, recurrence relations, generating functions), pattern detection methods (finite differences, ratio analysis, modular patterns), conjecture generation workflow, classical integer sequences (Fibonacci, Catalan, partition numbers, Bernoulli numbers), combinatorial identities, the probabilistic method (Erdos, expected value arguments, Lovasz Local Lemma), AI-assisted discovery (FunSearch, Ramanujan Machine), and confidence calibration with cautionary tales (Mertens conjecture, Polya conjecture). Use when discovering patterns, analyzing sequences, generating conjectures, or working with combinatorial identities.
type
skill
category
math
status
stable
origin
tibsfox
modified
false
first_seen
"2026-04-12T00:00:00.000Z"
first_path
examples/skills/math/pattern-recognition/SKILL.md
superseded_by
null
Pattern Recognition
Mathematics advances by the interplay of conjecture and proof. Pattern recognition — the art of observing regularity in data and formulating precise conjectures — is the creative engine that drives discovery. Euler, Gauss, and Ramanujan were supreme pattern-finders whose conjectures shaped centuries of subsequent mathematics. This skill covers systematic methods for detecting patterns, generating conjectures, and calibrating confidence before committing to a proof attempt.
The OEIS (On-Line Encyclopedia of Integer Sequences)
The OEIS (oeis.org), founded by Neil Sloane in 1964 and now containing over 370,000 sequences, is the single most important resource for pattern recognition in mathematics. Given the first several terms of a sequence, searching the OEIS often identifies the sequence, its name, its generating function, known formulas, and references.
Strategy. When encountering an unfamiliar sequence:
Compute at least 6-8 terms.
Search the OEIS by the terms.
If no match, compute the sequence of first differences, second differences, or ratios and search those.
If still no match, try looking at the sequence modulo small primes.
Recurrence Relations
A recurrence relation defines each term as a function of previous terms.
Linear recurrences with constant coefficients. The general form a_n = c_1 * a_{n-1} + c_2 * a_{n-2} + ... + c_k * a_{n-k} has solutions determined by the roots of the characteristic polynomial x^k - c_1 * x^{k-1} - ... - c_k = 0.
Worked example.Find a closed form for the Fibonacci sequence: F_n = F_{n-1} + F_{n-2}, F_0 = 0, F_1 = 1.
Algebraic operations on generating functions correspond to operations on sequences: multiplication corresponds to convolution, differentiation to index-shifting, and composition to certain substitution operations. Many sequence identities that are hard to prove combinatorially become routine algebra on generating functions.
Why they matter.
Worked example.Find the generating function for the Fibonacci sequence.
From F_n = F_{n-1} + F_{n-2}: multiply by x^n and sum over n >= 2.
The first difference of a sequence {a_n} is Delta(a_n) = a_{n+1} - a_n. Higher differences are defined recursively.
Key insight. If the k-th differences are constant, the sequence is a polynomial of degree k.
Sequence type
1st diff
2nd diff
3rd diff
Linear (an + b)
Constant
Zero
Zero
Quadratic (an^2 + bn + c)
Linear
Constant
Zero
Cubic
Quadratic
Linear
Constant
Worked example.Identify the pattern: 1, 5, 14, 30, 55, 91, ...
First differences: 4, 9, 16, 25, 36 (perfect squares!)
Second differences: 5, 7, 9, 11 (arithmetic)
Third differences: 2, 2, 2 (constant)
Third differences are constant, so the sequence is a cubic polynomial. The first differences being perfect squares suggests a_n = sum_{k=1}^{n} k^2 = n(n+1)(2n+1)/6.
Compute successive ratios a_{n+1}/a_n. Convergence to a constant L suggests geometric growth (a_n is approximately C * L^n). Convergence to 1 from above suggests polynomial growth.
The ratios converge to phi = (1 + sqrt(5))/2 approximately 1.618, confirming Fibonacci-like exponential growth at rate phi.
Modular Patterns
Reduce a sequence modulo small numbers to reveal periodic structure.
Worked example.Fibonacci numbers mod 3: 0, 1, 1, 2, 0, 2, 2, 1, 0, 1, 1, 2, ...
The sequence is periodic with period 8. This is the Pisano period pi(3) = 8. Every Fibonacci sequence mod m is periodic (a theorem), and the Pisano periods themselves form a fascinating sequence (OEIS A001175).
Part III — Conjecture Generation Workflow
The process from observation to theorem follows a structured workflow:
Step 1: Gather Data
Compute many examples. For sequence problems, compute at least 10-15 terms. For structural problems (graphs, groups, partitions), enumerate small cases completely.
Step 2: Look for Patterns
Apply the detection methods above: differences, ratios, modular reduction, OEIS lookup. Also look for:
Symmetry: Is a_n = a_{N-n} for some N?
Monotonicity: Is the sequence always increasing/decreasing?
Divisibility: Do certain primes always divide certain terms?
Recurrence: Can each term be expressed in terms of earlier terms?
Step 3: Formulate a Precise Conjecture
A conjecture must be a precise mathematical statement, not a vague observation. "The sequence seems to grow" is not a conjecture. "a_n = 2^n - 1 for all n >= 1" is a conjecture.
Step 4: Test the Conjecture
Verify the conjecture on data not used in its formation. If the conjecture predicts the next 5-10 terms correctly, confidence increases. If any prediction fails, revise.
Step 5: Attempt a Proof
If the conjecture survives testing, attempt a proof using the techniques from the proof-techniques skill. Common approaches: induction for sequences indexed by N, combinatorial arguments for identity conjectures, generating function methods for recurrence conjectures.
Step 6: Calibrate Confidence
See the cautionary tales section below. Even extensive numerical evidence can be misleading.
Appearance: rabbit populations (the original Fibonacci problem, Liber Abaci, 1202), phyllotaxis in plants, tilings of 2xn boards, Zeckendorf representation.
p(n) = number of ways to write n as a sum of positive integers (order doesn't matter). p(0) = 1, p(1) = 1, p(2) = 2, p(3) = 3, p(4) = 5, p(5) = 7, ...
Ramanujan discovered stunning congruences: p(5n + 4) = 0 mod 5, p(7n + 5) = 0 mod 7, p(11n + 6) = 0 mod 11. These congruences, initially discovered by pattern recognition on computed values, were later proved using modular forms.
Hardy-Ramanujan asymptotic formula (1918): p(n) ~ (1/(4n*sqrt(3))) * exp(pi * sqrt(2n/3)) as n -> infinity.
Key role: sum_{k=1}^{n} k^m = (1/(m+1)) * sum_{j=0}^{m} (m+1 choose j) * B_j * n^{m+1-j}. This is Faulhaber's formula, connecting Bernoulli numbers to power sums. Bernoulli numbers also appear in the Taylor series of x/(e^x - 1), the Euler-Maclaurin formula, and the values of the Riemann zeta function at negative integers.
Combinatorial proof. Choose r elements from a set of m + n elements by choosing k from the first m and r - k from the remaining n, then sum over all valid k.
The Hockey Stick Identity
sum_{i=0}^{r} (n+i choose n) = (n+r+1 choose n+1)
The name comes from the shape of the entries in Pascal's triangle when this sum is visualized.
Setting a = b = 1: sum (n choose k) = 2^n. Setting a = 1, b = -1: sum (-1)^k (n choose k) = 0.
Discovering New Identities
When a combinatorial identity is suspected:
Verify numerically for small cases.
Try to find a combinatorial proof (count the same set two ways).
Try generating function methods (algebraic proof).
Try Zeilberger's algorithm (computer-aided proof of hypergeometric identities).
Wilf-Zeilberger theory (1990s) provides algorithms that can automatically prove or disprove a wide class of combinatorial identities. Petkovsek, Wilf, and Zeilberger's A = B (1996) is the definitive reference.
Part VI — The Probabilistic Method
Expected Value Arguments
The simplest probabilistic method: if the expected value of a random variable X is mu, then there exists an outcome where X >= mu and an outcome where X <= mu.
Worked example.Every tournament on n vertices has a Hamiltonian path.
Proof. A tournament is a complete directed graph. Consider a random permutation sigma of the vertices. For each consecutive pair (sigma(i), sigma(i+1)), the probability that the edge goes from sigma(i) to sigma(i+1) is 1/2 (by symmetry). The expected number of "forward" edges is (n-1)/2. Since the total number of consecutive pairs is n-1, there exists a permutation with at least (n-1)/2 forward edges. (This doesn't complete the Hamiltonian path proof directly, but the probabilistic lens motivates the approach.)
The Erdos Probabilistic Method
Paul Erdos (1913-1996) created the probabilistic method as a systematic tool for combinatorics. His 1947 paper on Ramsey numbers was the landmark:
Theorem (Erdos, 1947). R(k, k) > 2^{k/2} for k >= 3.
Proof sketch. Color each edge of K_n (n = floor(2^{k/2})) randomly red or blue with probability 1/2. For any set S of k vertices, the probability that S forms a monochromatic K_k is 2 * (1/2)^{C(k,2)} = 2^{1-C(k,2)}. The expected number of monochromatic K_k subgraphs is C(n,k) * 2^{1-C(k,2)}. For n = floor(2^{k/2}), this expected count is less than 1, so there exists a coloring with no monochromatic K_k.
The Lovasz Local Lemma (Introduction)
The Local Lemma (Erdos and Lovasz, 1975) handles situations where events are not independent but each event depends on only a few others.
Symmetric form. If each event has probability at most p, each event is independent of all but at most d other events, and ep(d+1) <= 1, then with positive probability none of the events occur.
This is dramatically stronger than a union bound when d is small relative to the number of events. It has applications in graph coloring, satisfiability, and combinatorial geometry.
Part VII — AI-Assisted Mathematical Discovery
FunSearch (2023)
DeepMind's FunSearch (Romera-Paredes et al., 2023) uses large language models to search for mathematical functions that optimize specific objectives. Applied to the cap set problem (finding large subsets of Z_3^n with no three-term arithmetic progressions), FunSearch discovered constructions beating all previously known results for certain dimensions.
The paradigm: LLMs generate candidate functions, an evaluator scores them, the best are used to prompt further generation. This is not proof but discovery — the constructions must still be verified.
The Ramanujan Machine (2019)
The Ramanujan Machine (Raayoni et al., 2019, Technion) is an algorithmic framework for discovering new formulas for mathematical constants. It uses pattern-matching algorithms (MITM-RF, Conservative Matrix Field) to generate continued fraction representations of pi, e, and the Catalan constant.
Example discovery: a new continued fraction for 4/pi that was not previously in the literature, later proved correct.
Confidence Calibration
AI-discovered patterns require rigorous verification. The LLM is an oracle for conjectures, not proofs. Every AI-generated conjecture must be subjected to the same proof-or-disproof workflow as any human conjecture.
Part VIII — Cautionary Tales
The Mertens Conjecture (1897-1985)
Mertens conjectured that |M(n)| < sqrt(n) for all n, where M(n) = sum_{k=1}^{n} mu(k) is the Mertens function. This was verified computationally for all n up to 10^8. In 1985, Odlyzko and te Riele proved the conjecture FALSE — but the first counterexample exceeds 10^30. Numerical evidence was compelling yet misleading.
Lesson. Computational verification, no matter how extensive, is not proof. A statement can hold for all tested values and still be false.
The Polya Conjecture (1919-1958)
Polya conjectured that for most integers, the number of prime factors (counted with multiplicity) is odd — formally, that L(n) = sum_{k=1}^{n} lambda(k) <= 0 for all n >= 2. This holds for all n up to 906,150,257. The first counterexample was found by Haselgrove in 1958 using analytic methods.
The pattern gives pi/2 for the first SEVEN terms. The eighth integral is strictly less than pi/2 (by approximately 4.6 * 10^{-11}). This was discovered by David and Jonathan Borwein and is a famous example of a "pattern" that breaks precisely when intuition says it shouldn't.
Lesson. Seven data points (or seventy, or seven thousand) are not proof.
When to Use This Skill
Analyzing an unfamiliar sequence or pattern
Generating mathematical conjectures from data
Working with combinatorial identities or integer sequences
Applying the probabilistic method in combinatorics
Evaluating confidence in observed patterns
When NOT to Use This Skill
For proving a conjecture once formulated — use proof-techniques
For algebraic manipulation — use algebraic-reasoning
For calculus computations — use numerical-analysis
For real-world data modeling — use mathematical-modeling
Cross-References
ramanujan agent: Intuitive pattern discovery, sequence analysis, and identity generation. Named for Srinivasa Ramanujan (1887-1920), whose notebooks contain thousands of formulas discovered through extraordinary pattern recognition, many still being proved today.
euler agent: Generating functions, analytic combinatorics, and connections between sequences and analysis.
proof-techniques skill: Converting conjectures into theorems. Pattern recognition generates the "what"; proof-techniques provides the "why."
algebraic-reasoning skill: Algebraic manipulation of generating functions and recurrence relations.
numerical-analysis skill: Computational methods for verifying patterns and generating data.
References
Sloane, N. J. A. (2003). "The On-Line Encyclopedia of Integer Sequences." Notices of the AMS, 50(8), 912-915.
Wilf, H. S. (2005). Generatingfunctionology. 3rd edition. AK Peters. (Free online.)
Petkovsek, M., Wilf, H. S., & Zeilberger, D. (1996). A = B. AK Peters. (Free online.)
Aigner, M., & Ziegler, G. M. (2018). Proofs from THE BOOK. 6th edition. Springer. (Probabilistic method chapter.)
Erdos, P. (1947). "Some remarks on the theory of graphs." Bulletin of the AMS, 53, 292-294.
Erdos, P., & Lovasz, L. (1975). "Problems and results on 3-chromatic hypergraphs." Colloquia Mathematica Societatis Janos Bolyai, 10, 609-627.
Romera-Paredes, B., et al. (2023). "Mathematical discoveries from program search with large language models." Nature, 625, 468-475.
Raayoni, G., et al. (2019). "Generating conjectures on fundamental constants with the Ramanujan Machine." Nature, 590, 67-73.
Odlyzko, A. M., & te Riele, H. J. J. (1985). "Disproof of the Mertens conjecture." Journal fur die reine und angewandte Mathematik, 357, 138-160.
Borwein, D., & Borwein, J. M. (2001). "Some remarkable properties of sinc and related integrals." Ramanujan Journal, 5, 73-89.
