Is it acceptable to work backwards in a "show this" problem?


by serllus reuel
Tags: acceptable, backwards, show this, work
serllus reuel
serllus reuel is offline
#1
Dec24-13, 12:18 PM
P: 56
In problems that ask you to "show" something (e.g. "show that the formula/equation for ____ is _____") , it it sufficient to simply justify the answer they give (working backwards to literally "show it"), or should one derive the formula, as if the answer were not there?

I know this depends on the problem, for example, an exercise that asks you show that a particular solution to an ODE is correct probably does not want you to solve the ODE. There are also cases in which it is impossible to work backwards. But, what is the general rule to these problems, if any?
Phys.Org News Partner Mathematics news on Phys.org
Hyperbolic homogeneous polynomials, oh my!
Researchers help Boston Marathon organizers plan for 2014 race
'Math detective' analyzes odds for suspicious lottery wins
Zondrina
Zondrina is offline
#2
Dec24-13, 12:35 PM
P: 1,338
Quote Quote by serllus reuel View Post
In problems that ask you to "show" something (e.g. "show that the formula/equation for ____ is _____") , it it sufficient to simply justify the answer they give (working backwards to literally "show it"), or should one derive the formula, as if the answer were not there?

I know this depends on the problem, for example, an exercise that asks you show that a particular solution to an ODE is correct probably does not want you to solve the ODE. There are also cases in which it is impossible to work backwards. But, what is the general rule to these problems, if any?
I believe most questions like those expect you to proceed in a direct fashion (defining variables and manipulating them) to find the "target equation/answer".

That's probably almost always the case because if you work backwards, there's far more room for errors and you may potentially find yourself with the "wrong start" if you know what I mean.

Take for example something like Hess' law. Imagine trying to work the target equation backwards to find the 'x' many given equations and molar enthalpies. That's definitely harder than using the x many equations to find the target equation.
Jilang
Jilang is offline
#3
Dec24-13, 12:37 PM
PF Gold
P: 367
If you can work it backwards first you then should be able to then show it forwards. If they are just asking to show it is solution, plug it in I say!

mathman523
mathman523 is offline
#4
Dec30-13, 07:44 AM
P: 2

Is it acceptable to work backwards in a "show this" problem?


I find it that it is easy to plug the variables into the equation. For example if you take the basic equation d=st, then rather than thinking in your brain backwards about numbers, plugging in is a lot easier.
Mark44
Mark44 is offline
#5
Dec30-13, 02:02 PM
Mentor
P: 21,059
Quote Quote by serllus reuel View Post
In problems that ask you to "show" something (e.g. "show that the formula/equation for ____ is _____") , it it sufficient to simply justify the answer they give (working backwards to literally "show it"), or should one derive the formula, as if the answer were not there?
If the goal of the exercise is as you state here, you should start with the given assumptions and work toward the formula or equation.
Quote Quote by serllus reuel View Post

I know this depends on the problem, for example, an exercise that asks you show that a particular solution to an ODE is correct probably does not want you to solve the ODE.
This is really a different question. Here you are given a differential equation and a purported solution. All you need to do is show that the solution that is provided satisfies the D.E. You do not need to solve the differential equation, and doing so is much more work than is asked for.
Quote Quote by serllus reuel View Post
There are also cases in which it is impossible to work backwards. But, what is the general rule to these problems, if any?
If you are asked to show that two equations are equivalent, then it might be possible to work backward from the equation you're supposed to end with, provided that each step you apply is reversible. For example, operations such as adding a certain quantity to both sides of the equation, multiplying both sides by the same nonzero number, and others are reversible steps. Squaring both sides, however, is not a reversible step.
HallsofIvy
HallsofIvy is online now
#6
Dec31-13, 07:57 AM
Math
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
Thanks
PF Gold
P: 38,895
This is sometimes called a "synthetic" proof: you start from the conclusion and work backwards to the hypothesis. As long as it is clear that every step is reversible that's a valid proof because we could go from hypothesis to conclusion by reversing each step.


Register to reply

Related Discussions
how to work out "frictional torque" and "resisting motion" Introductory Physics Homework 1
How come the proof is "wrong" if I do it backwards? Calculus & Beyond Homework 10
A "countable basis" vs. "countably locally finite" problem Calculus & Beyond Homework 2
Spivak's Calculus, 5(x) -- "Use (ix) backwards..." Calculus & Beyond Homework 1
understanding differential equations "backwards" Differential Equations 15