113

The Whitney graph isomorphism theorem gives an example of an extraordinary exception: a very general statement holds except for one very specific case.

Another example is the classification theorem for finite simple groups: a very general statement holds except for very few (26) sporadic cases.

I am looking for more of this kind of theorems-with-not-so-many-sporadic-exceptions

(added:) where the exceptions don't come in a row and/or in the beginning - but are scattered truly sporadically.

(A late thanks to Asaf!)

  • 5
    There are many examples coming from Waring's problem: Every sufficiently large number is a sum of at most 7 cubes, for example. But, removing "sufficiently large" requires changing the 7 to a 9. – Andrés E. Caicedo Aug 24 '12 at 00:32
  • 1
    @Andres: Please allow me to count Waring's problem as one further example. – Hans-Peter Stricker Aug 24 '12 at 00:34
  • 159
    Theorem: All natural numbers are larger than $10$, except $0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9$. – Asaf Karagila Aug 24 '12 at 00:35
  • Go ahead. Ellison's and Vaughan-Wooley surveys (both mentioned on the wikipedia page) are excellent. – Andrés E. Caicedo Aug 24 '12 at 00:36
  • @Asaf: Your theorem is not of this kind. (Forgive me for not having defined precisely what this kind actually is - just by examples.) – Hans-Peter Stricker Aug 24 '12 at 00:40
  • 19
    @Hans: I know it's not. I'm trying to prod the discussion into helping you shape the definition in your head, so you could write it up. If I thought this is something you're looking for, I'd post it as an answer. – Asaf Karagila Aug 24 '12 at 00:41
  • @Asaf: If you know what I'm aiming for - could you please help me shaping it in my head, so I can write it up? – Hans-Peter Stricker Aug 24 '12 at 00:45
  • 5
    I just knew that you're not aiming for this. I'm not very good at reading minds in general... I also think that what I said above had to be said. – Asaf Karagila Aug 24 '12 at 00:46
  • It would be so great if people were better at reading other people's minds ;-) @Asaf: I did hope you not only guessed what I was not aiming for but also in the positive. I was hopeful that my two examples were enough. But alas - they were not. For the moment, I am helpless. – Hans-Peter Stricker Aug 24 '12 at 00:51
  • 27
    @Asaf We need to add 10 to the list of exceptions, no? – Ragib Zaman Aug 24 '12 at 03:11
  • Wouldn't theorems with no exceptions be in this list too? (Such as all integers are divisible by 1)? – N. Mao Aug 24 '12 at 03:19
  • 1
    Specifically, are we talking about theorems of the form "every $x$ with properties $A$ has property $B$, except for the following explicit list"? Or do you allow "for every $x$ with property $A$, all but finitely many $y$ that satisfy $B$ have property $C$" (where the list of exceptions can depend on $x$). – Robert Israel Aug 24 '12 at 05:12
  • 1
    And what about "every $x$ with $A$ has $B$, except for finitely many" (but we don't necessarily know which, or even how many)? – Robert Israel Aug 24 '12 at 05:27
  • @Hans: commenting on the answers you upvoted was completely unnecessary. Please don't do this. – Qiaochu Yuan Aug 24 '12 at 06:51
  • 6
    Actually all answers to this question should qualify. – celtschk Aug 24 '12 at 07:15
  • @Qiaochu: I guess you are right. (I found it a not so bad way of bookkeeping: which answers meet the intention of the question. But I understand that you don't like this, and I will not do this anymore.) – Hans-Peter Stricker Aug 24 '12 at 08:29
  • 2
    @AsafKaragila: Of course your theorem is a fallacy. It fails for number 10. – ypercubeᵀᴹ Aug 24 '12 at 11:36
  • 3
    @ypercube: It was pointed out before. Sadly, MSE do not allow editing comments after some time, and there is no point in deleting and re-posting it again. I am very happy that you were able to find a mistake in my sarcasm, it is very important to do that! – Asaf Karagila Aug 24 '12 at 13:11
  • 1
    @AsafKaragila, Have we not yet learned the perils of sarcasm? – Stephen Aug 24 '12 at 13:31
  • 1
    @Steve: Who are you? Sir Lancelot? – Asaf Karagila Aug 24 '12 at 13:35
  • 2
    Somehow, a lot of answers (even Asaf's marvellous theorem) are of the type “no object is of low complexity, except from a finite number of example”, which is not as satisfying as the examples given by the OP. – PseudoNeo Aug 24 '12 at 19:28
  • 2
    Many of the answers are not about sporadic exceptions, but rather the first n cases are exceptions before the theorem actually begins to work. – vtt Aug 24 '12 at 19:34
  • I don't think my own answer about Heegner numbers is really a good example either. All class numbers are greater than 1 is not a great theorem in the context of this question. All it is saying is that the class number considered as a function f(n) is equal to 1 at these values of n and not equal to 1 at other values of n. – vtt Aug 24 '12 at 19:36
  • @AsafKaragila, Am not. – Stephen Aug 24 '12 at 23:00
  • Someone please make this community wiki! –  Aug 26 '12 at 22:33
  • @SteveD: Uhh it's CW for two days now... – Asaf Karagila Aug 26 '12 at 22:40
  • Weird, when I answered it wasn't indicated as such... –  Aug 26 '12 at 23:25
  • Interesting question. But, I think you've sort of contradicted yourself. If we take classical logic for granted, and a theorem has any exceptions, then such theorems have instances where they end up false. That implies contradiction, and thus we don't have a theorem in the first place. The statement of these theorems actually hold in all cases, e. g. with "all primes are odd except 2" holds in all cases since the cases are 3, 5, 7, 11 ... I'd suggest you write instead something like "theorems which come as easily described by a pattern which admits of a few exceptions." – Doug Spoonwood Sep 18 '12 at 11:35

41 Answers41

90

Every automorphism of $S_n$ is inner if $n \neq 6$.

P.S. That $S_6$ has an `essentially' unique outer automorphism is quite a non-obvious fact.

  • 2
    This peculiar feature of $S_6$ compared to all the other symmetric groups culd be considered an "accident" of this group being viewed in the family of symmetric groups. There is a group isomorphism $S_6 \to {\rm Sp}_4(\mathbf F_2)$, and among all the symplectic groups ${\rm Sp}_n(F)$ for even $n$ and fields $F$, the groups ${\rm Sp}_4(F)$ when $F$ has characteristic $2$ all have unusual behavior compared to the other symplectic groups over fields. Google "four-dimensional symplectic characteristic $2$". This puts $S_6$ into an infinite family of unusual groups within a larger set of groups. – KCd May 25 '21 at 22:16
62

I've posted this answer to other questions, but it's worth repeating:

The topological manifold $\mathbb{R}^n$ has a unique smooth structure up to diffeomorphism as long as $n \neq 4$. However, $\mathbb{R}^4$ admits uncountably many exotic smooth structures.

Edit: Other thoughts:

  • The h-cobordism theorem holds for $n= 0, 1, 2$ and $n \geq 5$. It is open for $n = 3$ and false (smoothly) for $n=4$.

  • I've heard that many theorems in number theory only work for field characteristic $\neq 2$ (but my number theory background is sadly lacking).

  • $(\mathbb{Z}/n\mathbb{Z})^\times$ is cyclic iff $n = 1, 2, 4, p^k, 2p^k$, where $p$ is an odd prime, $k \geq 1$. (Granted, there aren't a finite number of exceptions here, but I wanted to mention it anyway.)

Jesse Madnick
  • 32,819
  • Well in Galois theory there is a simple test using the discriminant to see if the Galois group of an irreducible cubic is $A_3$ or $S_3$, but sadly it fails in characteristic 2 because $1 = -1$. –  Sep 03 '12 at 23:21
  • copied from wikipedia – user135041 Apr 08 '14 at 22:00
  • @Herbert: Guilty as charged: some, but not all, of what I've written is indeed copied verbatim. Still, I don't really think that affects the quality of the answer. Also, I like your new username :-) – Jesse Madnick Apr 08 '14 at 22:34
48

Carmichael's Theorem: Every Fibonacci number $F_n$ has a prime factor which does not divide any earlier Fibonacci number, except for $F_1 = F_2 = 1$, $F_6 = 8$ and $F_{12} = 144$.

This is a special case of his more general result: Let $P,Q$ be nonzero integers such that $P^2 > 4Q$, and consider the Lucas sequence $D_1 = 1$; $D_2 = P$; $D_{n+2} = P \cdot D_{n+1} - Q \cdot D_n$. Then all but finitely many $D_n$ have a prime factor which does not divide $D_m$ for any $m < n$; the only possible exceptions are $D_1$, $D_2$, $D_6$ and $D_{12}$.

user642796
  • 53,641
  • 6
    It's amazing to me that the exceptions always (potentially) happen at the same members of the sequence regardless of the values of $P$ and $Q$! Is there a brief explanation of why this happens? Are there infinitely many $P,Q$ for which e.g. $D_{12}$ has no prime factors that don't divide $D_n, n\leq 11$? – Steven Stadnicki Aug 24 '12 at 20:13
  • 1
    @Steven: There is a fairly readable proof in Minoru Yabuta, A simple proof of Carmichael's theorem on primitive divisors, Fib. Quart., vol.39, pp.439-443. The reason that these terms are the only possible exceptions is that the problem for all Lucas sequences can be reduced to an analysis of the Fibonacci sequence and the Fermat sequence ($M_1 = 1$; $M_2 = 3$; $M_{n+2} = 3 M_{n+1} - 2M_n$). In slightly more detail, to each Lucas sequence $D_n(P,Q)$ we can associate another sequence $E_n(P,Q)$. (cont...) – user642796 Aug 25 '12 at 05:58
  • 1
    @Steven: (...inued) A sufficient condition that $D_n(P,Q)$ has a "primitive divisor" is that $E_n(P,Q)$ is "large enough". For each $n>2$ we can also show that either $E_n(1,-1)$ (Fibonacci) or $E_n(3,2)$ (Fermat) is the minimum for all $E_n(P,Q)$. In this way we reduce the problem to those two sequences. It does seem that the Fibonacci sequence is the only one where the 12th term has no primitive divisor. – user642796 Aug 25 '12 at 05:59
  • Did you mean $-$, or do you mean $+$ as in the recurrences for the Fibonacci and Lucas sequences? If you allow $Q<0$, what is the intended lower bound on $Q$? 2) Did you intend to require $P$ and $Q$ to be coprime? There are numerous exceptions with $D_3$, $D_4$ or $D_{10}$ if $P$ and $Q$ may have a common prime factor.
  • – Rosie F Oct 13 '24 at 09:07