How do I improve my skills in constructing mathematical proofs?

  • Thread starter Thread starter gop
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Proofs
AI Thread Summary
Improving skills in constructing mathematical proofs requires a combination of practice and foundational knowledge. While proficiency in algebraic manipulations and specific proof techniques like epsilon-delta arguments is beneficial, tackling more complex proofs with numerous quantifiers can be challenging. Writing hypotheses and conclusions in first-order logic (FOL) may not always be effective for all proof types. Engaging with a variety of mathematical topics can enhance understanding and eventually lead to better proof construction abilities. Consistent effort and perseverance are essential for developing expertise in this area.
gop
Messages
55
Reaction score
0
Hi

First of all, I would like to mention that I can do proofs that involve algebraic manipulations (in a field i.e.) pretty well,
or proofs that involve epsilon-delta arguments or mathematical induction.
However, at the moment I'm reading "Principles of mathematical analysis" and I have a hard time to do the proofs on my own (maybe I can solve 1/3 of them).

I am used to write down the hypotheses and the conclusion in FOL (logic) and then I try to manipulate it to arrive at the conclusion.
This however (in my experience) works only well for proofs with a reasonably number of quantifiers (i.e. epsilon-delta arguments).

So my question would be how do you start a proof that involve a lot of quantification by writing it down in FOL or do you use another method?Another type of proofs, like the one why every real number has one unique n-th root, are a completely mystery to me. While I can follow it without problem I can't claim that I would have ever thought of that particular step etc..

What would you recommend? Just to practice more proofs (even if that means staring at the same equation for hours without solving it) or to continue with other mathematical topics and eventually reach a level of experience where the proofs can be done (I did the second in some fields of computer science and it worked quite well; however, this were obviously no proofs but rather examples of how to apply certain technique in a unusual way i.e.)

thx
 
Last edited:
Mathematics news on Phys.org
In my opinion, there's no other way to learn constructing correct and preferably elegant proofs than hard work and all the things that this entails. I think that both practicing more proofs and continuing with other mathematical topics till you are at a decent level and be able to do proofs that you previously couldn't, are things which given the right timing and combinations when you apply them, can lead you to a good learning. There's no secret, magical way or shortcut; the secret is in my opinion to not give up. Experience and expertise are things gained along the way provided that you work in a focused and systematic manner and wholeheartedly.
 
Thread 'Video on imaginary numbers and some queries'
Hi, I was watching the following video. I found some points confusing. Could you please help me to understand the gaps? Thanks, in advance! Question 1: Around 4:22, the video says the following. So for those mathematicians, negative numbers didn't exist. You could subtract, that is find the difference between two positive quantities, but you couldn't have a negative answer or negative coefficients. Mathematicians were so averse to negative numbers that there was no single quadratic...
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In Dirac’s Principles of Quantum Mechanics published in 1930 he introduced a “convenient notation” he referred to as a “delta function” which he treated as a continuum analog to the discrete Kronecker delta. The Kronecker delta is simply the indexed components of the identity operator in matrix algebra Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/what-exactly-is-diracs-delta-function/ by...
Suppose ,instead of the usual x,y coordinate system with an I basis vector along the x -axis and a corresponding j basis vector along the y-axis we instead have a different pair of basis vectors ,call them e and f along their respective axes. I have seen that this is an important subject in maths My question is what physical applications does such a model apply to? I am asking here because I have devoted quite a lot of time in the past to understanding convectors and the dual...

Similar threads

Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
13
Views
2K
Replies
8
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
9
Views
3K
Replies
12
Views
5K
Back
Top