This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
Both sides previous revision Previous revision Next revision | Previous revision | ||
elements_of_style_for_proofs [2013/09/19 23:17] bmwoodruff |
elements_of_style_for_proofs [2016/04/19 20:36] (current) bmwoodruff |
||
---|---|---|---|
Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
- | === The writing process. | + | - **The writing process.** Use the same writing process that you would for any writing project. |
- | Use the same writing process that you would for any writing project. | + | |
- | | + | |
- | | + | |
- | | + | |
- | | + | |
- | | + | - **The burden of communication lies on you, not on your reader.** It is your job to explain your thoughts; it is not your reader' |
- | + | | |
- | ===The burden of communication lies on you, not on your reader.=== | + | - **Use English words.** Although there will usually be equations or mathematical statements in your proofs, use English sentences to connect them and display their logical relationships. If you look in your notes/ |
- | It is your job to explain your thoughts; it is not your reader' | + | - **Use complete sentences.** If you wrote a history essay in sentence fragments, the reader would not understand what you meant; likewise in mathematics you must use complete sentences, with verbs, to convey your logical train of thought. |
- | otherwise the reader will continue to doubt. | + | < |
- | If you didn't write something on the paper, then (a) you didn't communicate it, (b) the reader didn't learn it, and (c) the grader has to assume you didn't know it in the first place. | + | </ |
- | | + | - **Show the logical connections among your sentences.** Use phrases like "Therefore" |
- | === Tell the reader what you're proving.=== | + | |
- | The reader doesn' | + | - **Know the difference between statements and objects.** A mathematical object is a //thing//, a noun, such as a group, an element, a vector space, a number, an ordered pair, etc. Objects either exist or don't exist. Statements, on the other hand, are mathematical |
- | + | < | |
- | - \textbf{Use English words.} Although there will usually be equations or mathematical statements in your proofs, use English sentences to connect them and display their logical relationships. If you look in your notes/ | + | </ |
- | + | - **"$=$" | |
- | - \textbf{Use complete sentences.} If you wrote a history essay in sentence fragments, the reader would not understand what you meant; likewise in mathematics you must use complete sentences, with verbs, to convey your logical train of thought. | + | - **Don't interchange ${=}$ and ${\implies}$.** The equals sign connects two //objects//, as in "$x^2=b$"; the symbol |
- | + | - **Say exactly what you mean.** Just as the $=$ is sometimes abused, so too people sometimes write $A\in B$ when they mean $A\subseteq B$, or write $a_{ij}\in A$ when they mean that $a_{ij}$ is an entry in matrix $A$. Mathematics is a very precise language, and there is a way to say exactly what you mean; find it and use it. | |
- | Some complete sentences can be written purely in mathematical symbols, such as equations (e.g., $a^3=b^{-1}$), | + | - **Don't write anything unproven.** Every statement on your paper should be something you //know// to be true. The reader expects your proof to be a series of statements, each proven by the statements that came before it. If you ever need to write something you don't yet know is true, you //must// preface it with words like "assume," "suppose," |
- | + | - **Write strings of equalities (or inequalities) in the proper order.** When your reader sees something like \[ | |
- | - \textbf{Show the logical connections among your sentences.} Use phrases like ``Therefore'' | + | |
- | + | ||
- | - \textbf{Know the difference between statements and objects.} A mathematical object is a \emph{thing}, a noun, such as a group, an element, a vector space, a number, an ordered pair, etc. Objects either exist or don't exist. Statements, on the other hand, are mathematical | + | |
- | + | ||
- | When you see or write a cluster of math symbols, be sure you know whether it's an object (e.g., | + | |
- | + | ||
- | - \textbf{``$=$'' | + | |
- | + | ||
- | - \textbf{Don't interchange ${=}$ and ${\implies}$.} The equals sign connects two \emph{objects}, as in ``$x^2=b$'' | + | |
- | + | ||
- | - \textbf{Say exactly what you mean.} Just as the $=$ is sometimes abused, so too people sometimes write $A\in B$ when they mean $A\subseteq B$, or write $a_{ij}\in A$ when they mean that $a_{ij}$ is an entry in matrix $A$. Mathematics is a very precise language, and there is a way to say exactly what you mean; find it and use it. | + | |
- | + | ||
- | - \textbf{Don't write anything unproven.} Every statement on your paper should be something you \emph{know} to be true. The reader expects your proof to be a series of statements, each proven by the statements that came before it. If you ever need to write something you don't yet know is true, you \emph{must} preface it with words like ``assume,'' | + | |
- | + | ||
- | - \textbf{Write strings of equalities (or inequalities) in the proper order.} When your reader sees something like | + | |
- | \[ | + | |
A=B\leq C=D, | A=B\leq C=D, | ||
- | \] | + | \] he/she expects to understand easily why $A=B$, why $B\leq C$, and why $C=D$, and he/she expects the //point// of the entire line to be the more complicated fact that $A\leq D$. For example, if you were computing the distance $d$ of the point $(12,5)$ from the origin, you could write \[ |
- | he/she expects to understand easily why $A=B$, why $B\leq C$, and why $C=D$, and he/she expects the \emph{point} of the entire line to be the more complicated fact that $A\leq D$. For example, if you were computing the distance $d$ of the point $(12,5)$ from the origin, you could write | + | |
- | \[ | + | |
d = \sqrt{12^2+5^2} = 13. | d = \sqrt{12^2+5^2} = 13. | ||
- | \] | + | \] In this string of equalities, the first equals sign is true by the Pythagorean theorem, the second is just arithmetic, and the //point// is that the first item equals the last item: $d=13$. |
- | In this string of equalities, the first equals sign is true by the Pythagorean theorem, the second is just arithmetic, and the \emph{point} is that the first item equals the last item: $d=13$. | + | < |
- | + | </ | |
- | A common error is to write strings of equations in the wrong order. For example, if you were to write ``$\sqrt{12^2+5^2}=13=d$'' | + | - **Avoid circularity.** Be sure that no step in your proof makes use of the conclusion! |
- | + | - **Don't write the proof backwards.** Beginning students often attempt to write "proofs" | |
- | - \textbf{Avoid circularity.} Be sure that no step in your proof makes use of the conclusion! | + | |
- | + | ||
- | - \textbf{Don't write the proof backwards.} Beginning students often attempt to write ``proofs'' | + | |
- | \begin{align*} | + | |
\tan^2(x) =& \sec^2(x) - 1 \\ | \tan^2(x) =& \sec^2(x) - 1 \\ | ||
\left(\frac{\sin(x)}{\cos(x)}\right)^2 =& \frac{1}{\cos^2(x)} - 1 \\ | \left(\frac{\sin(x)}{\cos(x)}\right)^2 =& \frac{1}{\cos^2(x)} - 1 \\ | ||
Line 65: | Line 43: | ||
\sin^2(x) + \cos^2(x) =& 1 \\ | \sin^2(x) + \cos^2(x) =& 1 \\ | ||
1 =& 1 | 1 =& 1 | ||
- | \end{align*} | + | \end{align*} Notice what has happened here: the writer |
- | Notice what has happened here: the writer | + | < |
- | + | </ | |
- | Now this isn't a bad way of \emph{finding} a proof. | + | - **Be concise.** Most students err by writing their proofs too short, so that the reader can't understand their logic. It is nevertheless quite possible to be too wordy, and if you find yourself writing a full-page essay, it's probably because you don't really have a proof, but just an intuition. When you find a way to turn that intuition into a formal proof, it will be much shorter. |
- | Working backwards from your goal often is a good strategy | + | - **Introduce every symbol you use.** If you use the letter |
- | but when it's time to \emph{write} your proof, | + | - **Use appropriate quantifiers (once).** When you introduce a variable $x\in S$, it must be clear to your reader whether you mean "for all $x\in S$" |
- | you have to start with the hypotheses and work to the conclusion. | + | < |
- | + | </ | |
- | - \textbf{Be concise.} Most students err by writing their proofs too short, so that the reader can't understand their logic. It is nevertheless quite possible to be too wordy, and if you find yourself writing a full-page essay, it's probably because you don't really have a proof, but just an intuition. When you find a way to turn that intuition into a formal proof, it will be much shorter. | + | < |
- | + | </ | |
- | - \textbf{Introduce every symbol you use.} If you use the letter | + | - **Use a symbol to mean only one thing.** Once you use the letter $x$ once, its meaning is fixed for the duration of your proof. You cannot use $x$ to mean anything else. |
- | | + | - **Don' |
- | - \textbf{Use appropriate quantifiers (once).} When you introduce a variable $x\in S$, it must be clear to your reader whether you mean ``for all $x\in S$'' | + | - **Write "Let $x=\dots$," |
- | + | < | |
- | Phrases indicating the quantifier | + | </ |
- | + | - **Make your counterexamples concrete and specific.** Proofs need to be entirely general, but counterexamples should be absolutely concrete. When you provide an example or counterexample, | |
- | On the other hand, don't introduce a variable more than once! Once you have said ``Let $x\in S$,'' | + | - **Don't include examples in proofs.** Including an example very rarely adds anything to your proof. If your logic is sound, then it doesn' |
- | + | - **Use scratch paper.** Finding your proof will be a long, potentially messy process, full of false starts and dead ends. Do all that on scratch paper until you find a real proof, and only then break out your clean paper to write your final proof carefully. | |
- | - \textbf{Use a symbol to mean only one thing.} Once you use the letter $x$ once, its meaning is fixed for the duration of your proof. You cannot use $x$ to mean anything else. | + | < |
- | + | </ | |
- | - \textbf{Don' | + | |
- | + | ||
- | - \textbf{Write ``Let $x=\dots$,'' | + | |
- | + | ||
- | If you were to write it backwards, saying | + | |
- | | + | |
- | - \textbf{Make your counterexamples concrete and specific.} Proofs need to be entirely general, but counterexamples should be absolutely concrete. When you provide an example or counterexample, | + | |
- | instead, provide an actual function $\theta$ that \emph{is} one-to-one but not onto. | + | |
- | | + | |
- | - \textbf{Don't include examples in proofs.} Including an example very rarely adds anything to your proof. If your logic is sound, then it doesn' | + | |
- | + | ||
- | - \textbf{Use scratch paper.} Finding your proof will be a long, potentially messy process, full of false starts and dead ends. Do all that on scratch paper | + | |
- | until you find a real proof, and only then break out your clean paper to write your final proof carefully. | + | |
- | + | ||
- | Only sentences that actually contribute to your proof should be part of the proof. Do not just perform a ``brain dump,'' | + | |
====$\LaTeX$==== | ====$\LaTeX$==== | ||
Line 139: | Line 101: | ||
\item \textbf{Show the logical connections among your sentences.} Use phrases like ``Therefore'' | \item \textbf{Show the logical connections among your sentences.} Use phrases like ``Therefore'' | ||
- | | + | |
+ | \item \textbf{Use paragraphs to organize your work into logical chunks.} If every sentence starts a new paragraph, then you are not logical organizing your work. Similarly, if you have a long proof and all your sentences are in a single paragraph, you are not logically organizing your work. Use paragraphs to put structure and order to your work. | ||
\item \textbf{Know the difference between statements and objects.} A mathematical object is a \emph{thing}, | \item \textbf{Know the difference between statements and objects.} A mathematical object is a \emph{thing}, | ||
Line 222: | Line 186: | ||
Ben - | Ben - | ||
Thanks for the great read Dana. I'm guessing this is your list of things you have noticed in student work over the years. | Thanks for the great read Dana. I'm guessing this is your list of things you have noticed in student work over the years. | ||
- | * \textbf{Don't write the proof backwards.} I agree completely. | + | * **Don't write the proof backwards.** I agree completely. |
- | + | ||
- | * \textbf{Don' | + | |
- | * \textbf{Use appropriate quantifiers (once).} If you just say something like " | + | * **Use appropriate quantifiers (once).** If you just say something like " |
* If the variable $y$ is already clearly defined as a single thing, then " | * If the variable $y$ is already clearly defined as a single thing, then " |