Good Book for Learning Mathematical Proofs

  • Thread starter Thread starter NathanaelNolk
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Book Proof
AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on finding a suitable introductory textbook for learning mathematical proofs. It emphasizes that mastering proofs requires both understanding the underlying logic (descriptive) and practicing how to construct proofs (prescriptive). The importance of committing to learning, even when some background knowledge seems irrelevant, is highlighted. Recommended textbooks include specific titles that cover essential chapters for foundational knowledge and practice. The conversation also notes that while set theory is relevant, not all aspects, such as transfinite concepts, are necessary for beginners. Overall, the key takeaway is that a balanced approach combining theory and practice is crucial for effectively learning to write mathematical proofs.
NathanaelNolk
Messages
85
Reaction score
14
Hello guys,
I didn't see any recommendation for a good introductory textbook about mathematical proofs. (Did I completely miss it?) Do you know which one I could take ? It would really be helpful.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Learning to ride a bicycle takes more than reading about bicycles. In the same way, learning to write proofs takes more than reading about proofs. Then also, there are two types of theory, the descriptive type (these are the brakes, these are the pedals) and the prescriptive type (if you want to slow down, squeeze the brake lever).

So with proofs there is a question whether to learn logic (descriptive) or how to prove (prescriptive), and there needs to be a practice phase. Some books will tend to be prescriptive and recipe-oriented. Some will tend to be descriptive and mathematical. And some will have both, some factual stuff and some recipes. It seems obvious to want both but that may not be the best way to learn: hand-picked exercises that fit recipes perfectly may not give one a full appreciation.

There is also the following problem. Someone like yourself who wants to learn how to write proofs does not yet know what knowledge is needed. So at the beginning, there is a lot of background knowledge needed and not all of it seems relevant. But one can only know what is relevant when one comes to use it. So there needs to be a committal, one needs to say, I am going to learn this even if it seems not to be terribly relevant, because someone more knowledgeable believes it is relevant. And that can be difficult.

The way to overcome it is to use the right books. These are what I recommend.

https://www.amazon.com/dp/0486477673/?tag=pfamazon01-20

Study chapters 1-3, know it very well.

https://www.amazon.com/dp/0486616304/?tag=pfamazon01-20

Cover chapters 1-6. This is also for the practice phase: go through it a second time, proving every theorem. You won't need to do it all, by about chapter 5 you will have had all the practice you should need.

PS. Obviously this is not the only way to learn this, it is one way among many. I think it is a good way.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Thanks for your answer verty, I'll take a look at those books you listed.
 
NathanaelNolk said:
Thanks for your answer verty, I'll take a look at those books you listed.

You're most welcome. I truly believe this is a case where there isn't an easy route to learning, one has to just commit to someone's recipe and follow it, if not mine then someone else's. At the end, it'll make sense.

One thing though, set theory although still very relevant is not quite the unifying foundation it used to be. For that reason, only the parts that relate to other areas are important. So you certainly don't need to bother with the transfinite stuff, and even some of that cardinal/ordinal stuff is not such a big deal.

Anyway, if you do choose to follow my method, try to enjoy it, you are learning something cool, how to prove mathematical claims.
 
verty said:
One thing though, set theory although still very relevant is not quite the unifying foundation it used to be. For that reason, only the parts that relate to other areas are important. So you certainly don't need to bother with the transfinite stuff, and even some of that cardinal/ordinal stuff is not such a big deal.
Okay, then I'll be sure to skip those parts. Thanks!

verty said:
Anyway, if you do choose to follow my method, try to enjoy it, you are learning something cool, how to prove mathematical claims.
I don't learn this just because I find it useful, but rather because I'm truly interested on how these proofs are constructed. I'll sure enjoy this!
 
TL;DR Summary: Book after Sakurai Modern Quantum Physics I am doing a comprehensive reading of sakurai and I have solved every problem from chapters I finished on my own, I will finish the book within 2 weeks and I want to delve into qft and other particle physics related topics, not from summaries but comprehensive books, I will start a graduate program related to cern in 3 months, I alreadily knew some qft but now I want to do it, hence do a good book with good problems in it first...
TLDR: is Blennow "Mathematical Methods for Physics and Engineering" a good follow-up to Altland "Mathematics for physicists"? Hello everybody, returning to physics after 30-something years, I felt the need to brush up my maths first. It took me 6 months and I'm currently more than half way through the Altland "Mathematics for physicists" book, covering the math for undergraduate studies at the right level of sophystication, most of which I howewer already knew (being an aerospace engineer)...

Similar threads

Replies
14
Views
1K
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
6K
Replies
5
Views
4K
Replies
17
Views
6K
Replies
39
Views
7K
Replies
13
Views
3K
Back
Top