[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 8 KB, 225x224, 1503814063618.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10215845 No.10215845 [Reply] [Original]

>The proof is left as an exercise.
>Think.
>The proof is trivial.
>Check Theorem 2.5

I FUCKING HATE MATHEMATICIANS SO FUCKING MUCH.
WRITE THE GODDAMN PROOF YOU FUCKING ANIMALS, I USED MY MONEY BUYING YOUR BOOKS AND ALL I GOT IS THE LAZINESS OF A GOD AWFUL SPERG.

>> No.10215854

>>10215845
The proof is trivial. It's not my problem if you're a brainlet

>> No.10215859

Have you considered using your brain you fucking worthless mong.

>> No.10215955

>>10215859
t. brainlet

>> No.10216244

>>10215845
Not enough pages in the world to write down all the proofs. You need to be able to make them yourself.

Hint: think harder.

>> No.10216247

>>10215845

I agree with you Dude. Anyone who writes a book and skips proofs saying they are trivial is a poor author.

>> No.10216268

>>10216244

This is accurate. If you're just reading the textbook like a novel then in the end you're not going to get much out of it.

>> No.10216275

you have to be able to think to study pure math.

I would suggest switching majors to something like electrical engineering. a lot of stupid people seem to be able to get through EE.

>> No.10216277

>>10215845
>he pays for textbooks

>> No.10216278

>>10216247
If you don't understand how the proofs are trivial, you need to re-read previous chapters.

>> No.10216282

>>10215845
>he can't derive the results he wants by introspection
>buying a textbook to begin with

>> No.10216556

>>10216275
imagine being this salty about your higher paid EE major friend you have to shit talk cable guys every chance you can

>> No.10216571

They also need to clarify exactly what notation they're using

>> No.10216690

>>10215845
if you struggle with "left as en exercise" proofs, you're not fit for the book yet and you should come back to it some time later. that's the truth honestly.

>> No.10216695

>protip: Trivial means you should stop and do it yourself. There are no major tricks needed to solve it.

>protip: Obvious means you should stop and think about it until it becomes obvious.

>> No.10217135

>>10216247
>>10215845
Goddammit, when did the brainlets on /sci/ become so active about brainlet issues? Honestly this just shows that you will never become mathematicians. Instead of reading a book carefully and trying to understanding the material, you people open the book and turn off your brain, expecting to be spoonfed throughout. It's impossible to win with people like you. If in every chapter math book authors assumed that the reader has completely forgotten/not understood the previous chapters and explained again and again all the trivial steps in the proofs, each math book would be about a thousand pages long, and then you hopeless brainlets would be complaining how math books are too long! I mean how hard is it to get it through your heads that math is not different from other subjects - you DON'T learn just from plowing your eyes through the book, you are expected to ENGAGE and and actively try to UNDERSTAND the material by trying to come up with your own examples, trying to vary the assumptions of theorems etc, in other words, by THINKING. I don't have enough data to prove what I'm going to say next, but it is my opinion that the lazy people that complain about these "issues" are the same people who only learn math to pass exams or to appear superior to other people, not because they're actually curious and have a thirst of knowledge. Unsurprisingly, these types of people tend to end up with at most superficial knowledge of science and math. If you are like that, please leave this board, there is no need for you. Even an actual brainlet that is curious is 100 times better than you scum. Whenever I see an exercise like that i think to myself "Great! I have an opportunity to actually do some math in an unfamiliar subject and understand what i've read about better".
...

>> No.10217137

>>10217135
...
If you don't know how to do the proof, that is a sign that you need to reread the material beforehand, because you didn't understand it. If you actually did that, you would see that it's a great way to actually learn. With regards to references by numbering to previous theorems, it's similar. You are supposed to remember the theorems you read about and understand them. If it's actually trivial, you should immediately see which theorems are used even without going back. If you can't do that, it means you don't understand the theorems well enough to apply them, you need to go back to study them in a greater detail, see actually how it all fits together.

>> No.10217146

>>10217137
I would like to conclude with a fitting quote by Paul Halmos:
"Don't just read it; fight it! Ask your own question, look for your own examples, discover your own proofs. Is the hypothesis necessary? Is the converse true? What happens in the classical special case? What about the degenerate cases? Where does the proof use the hypothesis?"

>> No.10217156

>>10216244
>Not enough pages in the world to write down all the proofs
More than that, you cannot write down all the proofs. It really does ultimately depend on your intuition.

>> No.10217159

>>10217156
BRAINLET physicist/engineer detected. It it ultimately depends on your intuition, it's NOT A PROOF! Consider reading a math book at once.

>> No.10217170

>>10217159
Axioms definitely depend on intuition though

>> No.10217173

>>10217170
huh? what makes you say that?

>> No.10217179

>>10217173
It's trivial?
No, seriously how else would you choose the axioms?

>> No.10217182

>>10217179
By reasoning of course, like other things. The only difference is that in many cases when choosing axioms you don't have previous math axioms to rely on.

>> No.10217186

>>10217182
And you think reasoning doesn't require intuition?

>> No.10217205

>>10217186
A fair amount of intuition too, sure. But my point is that it's unfair to say that even axioms ultimately depend on intuition, because they're not, they have been arrived at by a lot of reasoning, not just because they feel right or whatever.

>> No.10217216

>>10217205
Reasoning is impossible unless there's a point where it feels right.
It's not secondary, it's absolutely essential. So it really does ultimately depend on your intuition.

>> No.10217221

>>10217216
I understand and agree with your point, but that's not what i mean by intuition, nor is that what people who handwave the proofs because "they feel right" mean by it.

>> No.10217236

>>10217221
I very deliberately used the word ultimately since the first post.
>More than that, you cannot write down all the proofs. It really does ultimately depend on your intuition.
And then some jerk comes and calls me a brainlet!

>> No.10217293

>>10217236
They dont, brainlet, they rely on logic and axioms. You should be able to write all the proofs in formal logic language.

>> No.10217302

and the argument between the platonic classicist and the intuitionist continues

>> No.10217304

>>10217293
Oh no, not again!
Formal logic language is not possible without intuition.

>> No.10217313

>>10217304
different anon here, btw im the platonist that you normally debate and I dont think youre a brainlet
there is no such thing as intuition that doesn't come from the platonic realm so of course "intuition" will support logic. logic precedes cognition, which precedes intuition.

>> No.10217321

>>10217313
>logic precedes cognition
Can you elaborate on that?

>> No.10217328

>>10217321
Cognition is established by logical rules.

>> No.10217337

>>10217328
I think that's just restating it.
Just to be clear, is this a circular system where they establish each other or do you think logic somehow exists without cognition?

>> No.10217339

>Being mad about that and not the answers to the questions being locked behind digital keys

>> No.10217350
File: 78 KB, 586x578, curryhowardhomeomorphism.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10217350

>>10217337
>each other or do you think logic somehow exists without cognition?
yes logic exists platonically without cognition, just like triangles, math, the laws of physics, etc
cognition can then discover it, and is ultimately based on it

>> No.10217373

>>10217350
As far as I understand the platonic realm is not limited right?
If so then triangles, math, logic and physics as we know them are discovered in a way completely dependent of current cognition.

As in, is discovering the infinite really different from molding out of it? I think not.

>> No.10217392

>>10217337
Are cognition is based on logical rules (not necessarily general logic’a). Our logic follows the form of these rules and therefore we can discover the logical rules of thinking, which themselves establish the basis of what we call general logic.

>> No.10218466

IQfags need to be shot

>> No.10218647

>Do a proof
>Be wrong
>???????

>> No.10218705

>>10216556
>Shit talk cable guys
You said ityourself

>> No.10218712

>>10217337
Kant reading scum. Off yourself you kike piece of shit

>> No.10218788

>>10216278
>>10216690
These two statements, right here.
You're missing some piece of earlier material.

>> No.10219193

>>10215845
those are all harmless. however:
>theorem 2.27: ...
>proof: see problem 2.5 at the end of this chapter.
>problem 2.5: prove theorem 2.27
now this is cancer.

>> No.10219234

>>10217146
Why are you so mad anon?

>> No.10219248

>>10216690
>you're not fit for the book

Forbid a TEXT book actually explain all the proofs, almost like someone was trying to actually TEACH instead of just cover the material.

>> No.10219252

>>10215845

all proofs are online... just google the words rofl

>> No.10219273

>>10219248
>Forbid a TEXT book actually explain all the proofs, almost like someone was trying to actually TEACH instead of just cover the material.

CS brainlet detected

>> No.10219597

>>10219273
Call people brainlets as much as you like. I'm not the battered wife trying to justify a poorly written book. All you've done is deal with it and convince yourself it's appropriate because the shitty practice is so commonplace. Embarrassing.

>> No.10220569

>>10219248
every book is targeted to a certain audience and assumes certain knowledge and certain mathematical maturity. it's common that books start with material which the reader is assumed to have already seen, just to estabilish notation for example. or look at it this way: an undergraduate obviously wants and needs a book where every trivial statement is rigorously proved, because he doesn't know any better. but a phd student might prefer a book which gets to the point faster, because he's able to supply the motivations, explanations and arguments himself. or maybe he doesn't need to learn the material at all, he just needs a reference. the point is that what is good for you might not be good for others and vice versa. if you cannot follow a certain text, it doesn't mean that the text is poorly written, it means that you picked a wrong text for your needs.

>> No.10220613

>>10219597
>seething
>not understanding the point of the book isn't to document proofs or teach you how to follow them but to reach a point where you can make them yourself

>> No.10220722

>>10217135
Its almost like we’re paying hundreds of thousands of dollars to be taught

>> No.10220727

>>10219248
>idiot
>reddit spacing
Checks out.