Timeline for Introduction-to-proof book using natural-deduction-style rules?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
14 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 28, 2021 at 6:05 | review | Close votes | |||
| Dec 29, 2021 at 23:22 | |||||
| Dec 28, 2021 at 5:49 | comment | added | user155 | Does this answer your question? How to teach Proofs | |
| Feb 22, 2021 at 0:23 | comment | added | Mike Shulman | @StevenGubkin I wouldn't really use the phrase "weasel out", but I won't object to it either. I would say that $p\to \bot$ is really just the definition of $\neg p$. My paper about linear logic involves notions of "refutation" that are dual to "justification" when discussing semantics, but the rules of proof don't involve separate notions of "proving false" and "proving true". | |
| Feb 21, 2021 at 23:51 | comment | added | Steven Gubkin | @MikeShulman I also thought you might enjoy the bit about "weaseling out" of rules for proving that statements are false. I think I read a paper of yours some time back about linear logic which needed such rules. | |
| Feb 21, 2021 at 23:44 | comment | added | Steven Gubkin | @MikeShulman Good point on both counts! I will update the document to include your observation about case analysis. | |
| Feb 21, 2021 at 21:11 | comment | added | Mike Shulman | @StevenGubkin Not bad! Minor point: you use F for both "Superman is fast" and absurdity, which might be a bit confusing. Less minor point: I think a very common way to prove a disjunction $p\vee q$ is to first use some other disjunction and then prove $p$ in one branch of the case split and $q$ in another branch. So I would disagree that most of the time we prove a disjunction with the converse-disjunctive-syllogism. | |
| Feb 21, 2021 at 16:12 | comment | added | Steven Gubkin | @MikeShulman I am writing course notes for a discrete math textbook now, and I may eventually assemble them into a book. If you are interested, take a look at drive.google.com/file/d/10-diAOsR8aC2sIhRqxFzl0WsDDAvC6hx/view and let me know what you think. Constructive criticism is welcome. | |
| Dec 2, 2014 at 7:21 | comment | added | Mike Shulman | @brendansullivan07, if you only want to share it with me, my email address is on my web site; you can send me an attachment or point me to a private URL, dropbox folder, etc. I can't think of any way to share it with others who may be interested yet keep it non-public other than inviting any such person to contact you directly. | |
| Dec 2, 2014 at 5:18 | comment | added | Brendan W. Sullivan | I've written a text that addresses your needs, I believe; however, it's not available (yet) publicly. How can I share it with you (and others who may be interested)? | |
| Nov 27, 2014 at 10:11 | vote | accept | Mike Shulman | ||
| Nov 26, 2014 at 1:55 | answer | added | Andrey Kaipov | timeline score: 9 | |
| Nov 25, 2014 at 23:34 | comment | added | Mike Shulman | @AndreyKaipov no, I hadn't yet, thanks! His chapter 3 is pretty much exactly what I wanted. If you post that as an answer, I'll accept it. | |
| Nov 23, 2014 at 4:42 | comment | added | Andrey Kaipov | Have you looked at How to Prove It by Daniel Velleman? I bought the book my senior year of high-school and I believe it introduced me to advanced math pretty well. An entire chapter is devoted to proof strategies and different kinds of proofs. | |
| Nov 20, 2014 at 6:38 | history | asked | Mike Shulman | CC BY-SA 3.0 |