- 362
- 0
In general, what is the conventional method of proving a theorem? What makes a proof valid? I hope that question is clear enough.
that looks like a good answerOriginally posted by loop quantum gravity
i think (and i might be wrong) but a proof should be prooved by Deductive reasoning first you have the premesis which is the data you have in hand in order to proove the theorem after that you conclude from the data the conclusion (theorem).
i hope the explanation is ok.
edit:
here is link to an article about the origins of proof there you might find the answer you were looking:http://plus.maths.org/issue7/features/proof1/
no. why would you say it is paradoxical?Originally posted by loop quantum gravity
now isnt this definition paradoxical?
to show that something is not true, it is sufficient, and usually easier, to simply provide a counterexample.Originally posted by StephenPrivitera
Prove that addition is not distributive over multiplication (domain=natural numbers).
Well that was much too easy!Originally posted by lethe
to show that something is not true, it is sufficient, and usually easier, to simply provide a counterexample.
if addition were distributive over multiplication, then 1+1*1 would equal (1+1)*(1+1). but 2 does not equal 4.
that is all one needs to do.
never mind my idea was a wrong one.Originally posted by lethe
no. why would you say it is paradoxical?
Stephen, maybe it might help to make a list of common types of proofs. Here's some examples that I remember from scratch:Originally posted by StephenPrivitera
In general, what is the conventional method of proving a theorem? What makes a proof valid? I hope that question is clear enough.