How can I improve my proof skills with internet resources?

  • I
  • Thread starter Logical Dog
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Proof
In summary: That the internet make all the work :biggrin:In summary, the conversation discusses the correctness of a proof and whether or not zero can be a factor in certain equations. The conclusion is that zero cannot be divided by any number and therefore cannot be a factor in any equation. Additionally, the conversation provides tips and resources for learning and using LaTeX for mathematical equations.
  • #1
Logical Dog
362
97
Is this proof even correct?! It places assumption on a and c NOT BEING ZERO.
Thanks in advance. I am new to proofs.
4o2b18S.png
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
  • #2
If a|b, can a be zero?
If c|d, can c be zero?

If not, that case is not relevant for the proposition.
 
  • Like
Likes Logical Dog
  • #3
mfb said:
If a|b, can a be zero?
If c|d, can c be zero?

If not, that case is not relevant for the proposition.

No, I think. Nonumber can be divided by zero. Edot: I was confused because it said all are in integers

Any other (creative) way to do this proof? :smile: (using a direct proof method)
 
Last edited:
  • #4
Bipolar Demon said:
No, I think. No real number can be divided by zero
No number can be divided by zero. Zero doesn't belong to multiplicative groups by definition of the group properties and zero as the additive neutral element.

The other way around, if multiplication (of all elements including zero) doesn't form a group, one can have ##a\cdot b =0## ##a## and ##b## are then called zero divisors. E.g. the remainders of divisions by a non-prime have zero divisors, ##2\cdot 3 \equiv 0 \mod (6)##.
 
  • Like
Likes Logical Dog
  • #5
It looks good to me. Maybe it could use a little word-smithing.
 
  • Like
Likes Logical Dog
  • #6
The order of your proof needs work. You say
"Thus ##\frac{bd}{ac} = l, l \in \mathbb{Z}##"
Then you talk some more about ##\frac{bd}{ac}##, which should come before saying, "Thus..."
Here's what I think is a more direct proof:
a | b and c | d
Then b = ka and d = mc, for integers k and m.
So bd = kmac
Hence ac | bd.​
When we say that a number a divides another b, both numbers are assumed to be integers, and a is assumed to be nonzero.
Edit: Fixed some typos caused by switching letters.
In the future, please post your work here directly, rather than as an image. Everything you did can be done using TeX. If you are uncertain how to use this, take a look at our tutorial, under INFO --> Help/How-tos. The LaTeX tutorial is listed there.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes Logical Dog
  • #7
Mark44 said:
The order of your proof needs work. You say
"Thus ##\frac{bd}{ac} = l, l \in \mathbb{Z}##"
Then you talk some more about ##\frac{bd}{ac}##, which should come before saying, "Thus..."
Here's what I think is a more direct proof:
a | b and c | d
Then b = ka and d = mc, for integers k and m.
So bd = kmac
Hence ac | bd.​
When we say that a number a divides another b, both numbers are assumed to be integers, and a is assumed to be nonzero.

In the future, please post your work here directly, rather than as an image. Everything you did can be done using TeX. If you are uncertain how to use this, take a look at our tutorial, under INFO --> Help/How-tos. The LaTeX tutorial is listed there.

ok, I will learn it. :-)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #10
Bipolar Demon said:
thanks a lot...I am just scared of having to program anything (last time I programmed things didn't go too well). I will ytry it :-)
You can do a lot with just a few tricks:
Fractions: ##\frac{ab}{cd}##
Script: ##\frac{ab}{cd}##

Exponents, subscripts: ##c_1x^2##
Script: ##c_1x^2##

Integrals: ##\int_a^b f(t) dt##
Script: ##\int_a^b f(t) dt##

These are probably the ones I use the most

Matrices: ##\begin{bmatrix} 2 & 3 \\ 0 & 1 \end{bmatrix}##
Script: ##\begin{bmatrix} 2 & 3 \\ 0 & 1 \end{bmatrix}##
 
  • Like
Likes Logical Dog
  • #11
Bipolar Demon said:
thanks a lot...I am just scared of having to program anything (last time I programmed things didn't go too well). I will ytry it :-)
The best thing is ##\text {## math ##} ## is fast to type.
I even downloaded me a tiny program (AutoHotkey) that allows me to add shortcuts to my keyboard. E.g. I have Alt+f which makes me \frac{}{} for quotients. One just have to ensure not to overload the shortcuts one usually uses, like Ctrl+c. But even then, this little helper can easily be switched on and off.
 
  • Like
Likes Logical Dog
  • #12
Bipolar Demon said:
thanks a lot...I am just scared of having to program anything (last time I programmed things didn't go too well). I will ytry it :-)
the best way to learn this is That the internet make all the work :biggrin:o_O
https://www.codecogs.com/latex/eqneditor.php
 
  • Like
Likes Logical Dog

1. Is this proof sufficient to support my hypothesis?

The adequacy of a proof can vary depending on the context and complexity of the hypothesis being tested. It is important to carefully evaluate all evidence and consider alternative explanations before determining if a proof is sufficient.

2. How can I know if a proof is valid?

A valid proof must follow logical reasoning and be supported by reliable evidence. It should also be able to withstand criticism and scrutiny from other scientists in the field. Peer review is an important process for determining the validity of a proof.

3. What are the key components of a strong proof?

A strong proof should have a clearly stated hypothesis, a well-designed experiment or study, reliable data, and a logical interpretation of the results. It should also consider and address potential confounding factors or limitations.

4. Can a proof ever be considered absolute?

No, a proof can never be considered absolute as new evidence or information may arise in the future that could change our understanding of the hypothesis being tested. However, a well-supported proof can be considered highly reliable and accepted by the scientific community.

5. How does reproducibility play a role in determining the adequacy of a proof?

Reproducibility is an important aspect of scientific research as it allows other scientists to replicate the experiment or study and obtain similar results. If a proof is not reproducible, it may call into question the validity and adequacy of the original proof.

Similar threads

Replies
8
Views
524
Replies
3
Views
817
Replies
18
Views
3K
Replies
4
Views
971
  • General Math
Replies
13
Views
1K
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
24
Views
808
  • General Math
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • General Math
Replies
22
Views
2K
Replies
33
Views
5K
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
1
Views
301
Back
Top