Proofs

[Anonymous No.9692134]

What's the secret? I can read and understand them but I cannot for the life of me DO them.

Every single line of a proof seems like some inspired divination to me, I cannot understand the process behind it. Do I simply lack the creativity to write proofs?

Help me.

[Anonymous No.9692457]

>>9692134
Like everything it takes practise. Most of the time it's also a really slow process, unless you're trying to prove something absolutely trivial. These elegant "canonical" proofs that you tend to bump into often started as crude ambiguous hypotheses that were polished into proper proofs over time, more often than not by multiple different people. Just be yourself.

[Anonymous No.9692469]

>>9692134
http://4chan-science.wikia.com/wiki/Mathematics#Proofs_and_Mathematical_Reasoning

[Anonymous No.9692480]

Proofs are what separate the brainlets from the geniuses. Sorry anon

[Anonymous No.9692482]

You literally just write the hypotheses and let the autistic connections in your brain do the work. If that doesn't work, your IQ is too low.

[Anonymous No.9692511]

>>9692134
>>9692480
>>9692482
>all these brainlets who don't even know about the taxicab study
>falling for IQ pseudoscience
yes yes that's nice. now here's some real biology for you fucking faggots

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC18253/
http://www.cell.com/current-biology/abstract/S0960-9822%2811%2901267-X

tldr: peoples' posterior hippocampus enlarged as they studied for years to memorize the streets of London.
this is substantive evidence that your brain can physically transform to specialize in something.
on the downside, further studies showed these same people suffered performance in other spheres, so you're probably trading in your social skills or something if you master this.
anyways just wax on wax off, and paint the fence, and one day the autism will be activated within you. gl op

[Anonymous No.9693765]

>>9692457
That gives me hope.

Still, sometimes it feels like an impossible point and click puzzle that I'd never solve without peeking at the walkthrough.

>>9692511
>you're probably trading in your social skills or something
I'm already pretty bad at this. Just trying to leverage my autism for math proficiency so it's good for something at least.

[Anonymous No.9693769]

>>9692511
> biology
> calls something else pseudoscience
Pfft HAHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHA

[Anonymous No.9693779]

>>9693765

it's never too late to become a man of low moral fiber

[Anonymous No.9693824]

>>9692134
In this situation, the claim is an implication. For
[math]p \implies q[/math]
You assume p is true and use properties about p to show q is true.

Direct proofs follow this same pattern.
Then there's induction
Proof by contradiction

And others. You have to decide what's the best way of going about it, then using tools you developed to find your answer.

[Anonymous No.9693849]

>>9693769
>psychology and social "science"
>inferring weak correlations based on (((statistics))) of self-reported bullshit, uncontrollable variables, and stochastic outcomes

>biology
>observable chemical reactions and physical structures in the real world with repeatable chains of causality
don't even try it anon

[Anonymous No.9694112]

>>9693824
Would this be a complete and correct formulation?

[math](\exists a,b \in Z)(0 \lt b) \implies (\exists q,r \in Z)(q \ne r)\wedge(0 \leq r \lt b )\wedge(a = qb+r) [/math]

[Anonymous No.9694274]

>>9694112
Looks ok to me.
I'd try to make it more compact though
[math] a = qb + r : q \neq r, 0 \leq r < b, r,q \in mathbb Z [/math]

[Anonymous No.9695343]

>>9692134
Youre either beyond hope retarded or you are over complication it massively. Euclids proof for infinitely many primes can basically be reduced to "yeah but I can just keep adding to the list of primes" and its 2300 years old created pre algebra comparing literal lines and circles.

[Anonymous No.9695348]

>>9693769
Oh look, hes retarded