Exercise 3: Why 200+ Proofs Is Meaningful, Not Redundant — Possible Solution
=================================================================================

Once a theorem has one valid proof, its truth is fully settled - a
second, third, or two-hundredth proof adds nothing further to how
CERTAIN we are that the statement is true. If the only value of a
proof were confirming truth, additional proofs really would be pure
redundancy.

But a genuinely different proof, using different underlying
mathematical tools, reveals something a single proof can't: real
CONNECTIONS between areas of mathematics that don't obviously relate
to each other on the surface. Furstenberg's real 1955 topological
proof is a striking example - topology is fundamentally about
continuity, shape, and open/closed sets, not about counting or
divisibility, yet it turns out the infinitude of primes can be
established using genuinely topological reasoning. That's real,
substantive information: it tells mathematicians that number theory
and topology share some deep structural link worth understanding
further, a discovery no single proof (however elegant) could reveal on
its own.

Each new, structurally different proof of the same true statement is
therefore evidence of that statement's own mathematical DEPTH - how
many different areas of mathematics turn out to be capable of
"reaching" the same underlying truth from completely different
starting points. A shallow, isolated fact would likely only ever attract
one or two proof styles; a theorem that keeps attracting genuinely new
approaches across centuries and different mathematical fields is a real
sign it sits at a deep, well-connected point in mathematics as a whole.

ANSWER: Additional proofs don't make the theorem more true, but a
genuinely different proof style (like Furstenberg's topological one)
reveals real, substantive connections between mathematical fields that
wouldn't otherwise be obvious - so a large number of structurally
different proofs is evidence of a theorem's own mathematical depth and
connectedness, not simple redundant repetition of an already-settled
fact.

WHY THIS WORKS AS AN ANSWER
------------------------------
This distinguishes "more certain" (which additional proofs don't
provide) from "more mathematically connected/informative" (which
genuinely different proofs do provide), using Furstenberg's real
topological proof as the concrete evidence.