Question about proof from a guy with a highschool education

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

This discussion centers on the presentation and structure of mathematical proofs, specifically proving that if A, B, and C are real numbers such that (A + B) = C, then (A - B) = (C - 2B). Participants emphasize the importance of clearly stating axioms and previously proven results, suggesting a structured format for proofs that includes axioms, lemmas, theorems, and the proof itself. Key feedback includes the necessity to justify each step in the proof and to avoid assuming the conclusion as a starting point. The conversation highlights common pitfalls for beginners in mathematical proof writing.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of basic algebraic operations and properties
  • Familiarity with mathematical axioms, particularly field axioms for real numbers
  • Knowledge of logical reasoning and proof techniques
  • Ability to manipulate equations and inequalities
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the field axioms for real numbers in depth
  • Learn how to structure mathematical proofs, including axioms, lemmas, and theorems
  • Practice writing proofs and seek feedback from knowledgeable peers
  • Explore common proof techniques such as direct proof, proof by contradiction, and mathematical induction
USEFUL FOR

Students learning mathematics, particularly those new to writing proofs, educators teaching proof techniques, and anyone interested in enhancing their logical reasoning skills in mathematics.

  • #751
No need to bring any calculus or analysis into this CompuChip. The proof is pretty straight-forward without it. Just note that (2+ε)(2-ε) = 4-ε2 ≤ 4 (where -2 ≤ ε ≤ 2) to show that the quadratic is bounded above by 4 on the desired interval.
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
  • #752
jgens said:
No need to bring any calculus or analysis into this CompuChip. The proof is pretty straight-forward without it. Just note that (2+ε)(2-ε) = 4-ε2 ≤ 4 (where -2 ≤ ε ≤ 2) to show that the quadratic is bounded above by 4 on the desired interval.

I'm not really sure what you're talking about at the end of your post but perhaps this is similar to what I attempted in my proof (see link in my post above)?
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
3K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
11K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
4K
  • · Replies 77 ·
3
Replies
77
Views
7K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
2K