Proof Writing for Dummies: Intersection & Union Elements

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the requirements for writing proofs in mathematics, specifically focusing on whether to include statements only or to provide reasons, as well as the necessity of including figures in proofs. The context includes considerations for exam/test settings and personal preferences regarding proof formats.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Meta-discussion

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants suggest that writing statements only in proofs is acceptable, while others emphasize the importance of knowing the expectations of the reader, such as a teacher or journal editor.
  • There is a general aversion expressed towards the two-column proof format, with some participants labeling it as unattractive and unnecessary.
  • Participants note that including figures in proofs is not compulsory, particularly if drawing them is easy.
  • One participant highlights that there is no universal standard for writing proofs, indicating that styles may vary based on the audience.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree that including reasons in proofs is not mandatory, but there is no consensus on the preferred style of proof writing, as opinions on the two-column format and the necessity of figures vary.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include the lack of a definitive standard for proof writing and the dependence on the expectations of different audiences, which may affect how proofs should be formatted.

woundedtiger4
Messages
188
Reaction score
0
Problem: Prove that any element in the intersection of two sets is also in their union.

I am reading a proof writing book for dummies & the solution given in text is:

http://tinypic.com/r/141hn7/5

http://tinypic.com/r/141hn7/5


First Question:
In exam/test, is it OK if I write the Statements only or do I need to write reasons as well (as shown in the pic). As, we are not suppose to write the proof in form of table but with every statement (which is already logically very clear in the pic) do I need to write the reason as well?

Second Question:

http://tinypic.com/r/et70jq/5

http://tinypic.com/r/et70jq/5

Similarly, if it is easy to draw figures then is it compulsory to add like this?

PS. I will appreciate if your answers are in YES/NO form.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Oh God, two column proofs. There is no better way to make proofs look ugly...

Anyway:

woundedtiger4 said:
In exam/test, is it OK if I write the Statements only or do I need to write reasons as well (as shown in the pic).

Statements only are ok. The reasons don't need to be given.

As, we are not suppose to write the proof in form of table but with every statement (which is already logically very clear in the pic) do I need to write the reason as well?

No. And I encourage you not to write proofs using those stupid tables.

Second Question:

http://tinypic.com/r/et70jq/5

http://tinypic.com/r/et70jq/5

Similarly, if it is easy to draw figures then is it compulsory to add like this?

No. It's not compulasory.
 
woundedtiger4 said:
In exam/test, is it OK if I write the Statements only or do I need to write reasons as well (as shown in the pic)..

There is no universal standard for writing proofs. How you write them depends on who you will read them. If the reader will be a teacher or grader, you must determine what they expect. If the reader is the editor of a math journal, you can look at past issues of the journal and see what style of writing proofs was accepted for publication. The style you see in math journals is very different from the style that teachers expect in elementary courses.

Like micromass, I'm not enthusiastic about the two column style of writing proofs. However, some teachers may expect this since it can make homework simpler to grade.
 
micromass said:
Oh God, two column proofs. There is no better way to make proofs look ugly...

Anyway:



Statements only are ok. The reasons don't need to be given.



No. And I encourage you not to write proofs using those stupid tables.



No. It's not compulasory.

Thanks a lot. God bless you. I am so much relieved :)
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K