Skip to main content

Timeline for Questions about proofs

Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0

7 events
when toggle format what by license comment
Feb 15, 2022 at 6:15 history edited ryang CC BY-SA 4.0
added 11 characters in body
Feb 14, 2022 at 12:06 history edited ryang CC BY-SA 4.0
migrate substantive comments into the post itself
Feb 11, 2022 at 7:41 comment added user21820 @DaveLRenfro: For whatever reason, I have never needed to write a proof that goes via a chain of equivalences to something trivial like "$1=1$". And regarding doing proofs backwards, I think it is pedagogically more instructive to learn the concepts of canonicalization and reductions, which actually suffice all high-school trigonometry. But of course, I completely agree with the point that both of you make, namely that correct proofs must be recognized as correct even if it looks silly, and likewise wrong proofs shouldn't be accepted. =)
Nov 27, 2021 at 17:30 comment added Dave L Renfro @Daniel R. Collins: In high school, for harder trig. identity proofs, I would often do them backwards and then reverse the order of the steps. A couple of my mathy friends also did this when they took the class (after I did, as I took it earlier), having discovered it independently (i.e. I didn't tell them what I had done), so I would imagine some others here did the same thing. Of course, this can lead to some highly non-intuitively discoverable proofs, where (for example) you might wind up replacing $\sin x$ with $1\cdot \sin x,$ followed by $(\sin^2 x + \cos^2 x)\cdot \sin x \; \ldots$
Nov 27, 2021 at 15:27 comment added Daniel R. Collins Re: "It's even valid to start with the desired result then work towards 1=1": it should be noted that a good number of textbooks explicitly prohibit this practice, e.g., as in this question here: matheducators.stackexchange.com/questions/12586/…
Nov 27, 2021 at 14:54 history edited ryang CC BY-SA 4.0
deleted 7 characters in body
Nov 27, 2021 at 14:47 history answered ryang CC BY-SA 4.0