/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.6438334]

Who is up for a proofs thread?
>questions about proofs
>methods of writing proofs
>resources for writing/understanding proofs
>classes you are taking now that require proofs

So you get the picture. As for me, this is what I got going on:
>be in my junior year at a big 10 uni
>kind of between an EE and a math major
>very seriously changing to CS because muh practicality
>taking a proof based linear algebra class atm
>second exposure to proofs since freshman year of highschool, so it's rough but not impossible

Aso, what is the best way to practice writing proofs? My professor says to just do book problems, but it doesn't help when I don't even know if I'm doing them right in the first place, and I can't spend every waking moment in office hours. What are some tried and true methods for being a better proof writer?

That was long winded, so pic related

[Anonymous No.6438387]

no takers? guess that's what i get for posting on a board full of INTJ's (then again I am one too)

[Anonymous No.6438404]

>>6438334
>changing to CS

I am so sorry

[Anonymous No.6438412]

>>6438387
Anon the issue is that you're posting in a board where a portion of us study pure math (the rest all have some level of exposure to proofs) and wanting to make a thread discussing the most intro portion to our topic.

It'd be like going to a board full of English majors and trying to make a thread about identifying parts of speech.

[Anonymous No.6438417]

I like proof wiki.

[Anonymous No.6438429]

>>6438412
Hey, I think that thread idea could really take off with the right people expanding the discussion from a really basic seed topic like that

[Anonymous No.6438445]

>>6438404
It cuts me to my very core to be switching to CS (read: failed engineers), but I have to graduate with something and engineering is no longer even available to me anymore, so I'll take what I can get (and actually do). I would love to switch to math, but I really only enjoy learning it at my own pace and not being dragged through the bullshit of academia to be given a degree in the end that is essentially meaningless if I don't go into grad school

[Anonymous No.6438446]

In the fall I am going to take a class with calc and proofs. What is a proof exactly? I remember in geometry a long time ago I used them.

In terms of calculating something and using a proof. Can anyone show me a way to solve the same calculus problem using a proof method and a non-proof method. Forgive me if I am making a huge mistake here and this is not even possible. I have no clue what I am talking about and want someone to show me what is going on here.

[Anonymous No.6438451]

>>6438417
I've been to that wiki, but it didn't really click for me. I will give it another go however, seeing as there is at least one vote here in its favor

[Anonymous No.6438572]

>>6438446
You don't have to solve too much. What you do is that you get a statement:

"If we have this and that, then this is also true"

You use a bunch of rules that are given to you and try to argue that the statement is true.

[Anonymous No.6438589]

>>6438404
What? What's so bad about it?

[Anonymous No.6438592]

>>6438404
I want the pink haired girl

[Anonymous No.6438600]

>>6438404
>mfw I've probably published more and been more successful as a grad student than the person who made this will ever be

[Anonymous No.6438611]

>>6438451
umm it's a reference material not something to teach you anything.
Proofs from the Book is pretty cool
>>6438589
it's a shitty /sci/ meme. pls ignore

[Anonymous No.6438654]

>>6438334
You never really "learn" proofs like you do other fields of mathematics. It's something you just get used to over time, more or less.

I'm a math grad student and I still don't kmow of aan exact proof method. I just try to look at the definitions' theorems and see if they all fit together. You kind of know it is correct when you can actually build a logical chain, but most people can miss like one or two links in that chain if they're not careful. Even Wiles, the man who solved the Fermat conjecture, missed a huge important link that he thought he accounted for. Someone else had to point out to him that he messed up. This is why it is good to occasionally work with a classmate.

[Anonymous No.6438668]

>>6438589

[Anonymous No.6438683]

>>6438592
But she only wants your money

[Anonymous No.6438840]

>>6438668
Probably made by an insecure engineer, trying desperately to cling on to what ever shred of respectability his field once had.

[Anonymous No.6438861]

>>6438446
A proof is when you take a bunch of true statements and string them together with a bunch of other true statements to show that some other true statement is implied by them.

[Anonymous No.6439067]

I just read this. I get proofs now. How to Prove it by Velleman. http://www.amazon.com/How-Prove-It-Structured-Approach/dp/0521675995

[Anonymous No.6439146]

Jumping in here because it involves proving Burger's equation.
du/dt + u du/dx=0. My compressible fluids professor was going over this and stated the solution is in the form u(x, t)=f(x-ut). But what I don't understand is when you try to put the solution into the pde. Any guidance would be appreciated.

[Anonymous No.6439151]

>>6439146
What? If you plug it in it works out, just use the chain rule. I don't see what else there is too it.

[Anonymous No.6439156]

>>6438445
Failed engineers go to business. CS is the bastard child between logic and linguistics if you're doing it right.

Undergrad is all pleb these days. GO big or GO home.

[Anonymous No.6439292]

You just kind of get an intuition for it after a while. If you're proving a conditional, assume the antecedent and derive the consequent. See if there's an obvious way the conclusion follows from your assumptions, definitions & lemmas. Start broad and get more and more precise as you work out the steps. Most importantly: keep writing proofs.