The art of proof summarizing. Are there known rules, or is it a purely common sense matter? ...
My bank got bought out, am I now going to have to start filing tax returns in a different state?
Second order approximation of the loss function (Deep learning book, 7.33)
Is it OK if I do not take the receipt in Germany?
c++ diamond problem - How to call base method only once
Is Electric Central Heating worth it if using Solar Panels?
Why did Israel vote against lifting the American embargo on Cuba?
Is Diceware more secure than a long passphrase?
Are all CP/M-80 implementations binary compatible?
Could moose/elk survive in the Amazon forest?
What is this word supposed to be?
What *exactly* is electrical current, voltage, and resistance?
Married in secret, can marital status in passport be changed at a later date?
Additive group of local rings
What is /etc/mtab in Linux?
How to keep bees out of canned beverages?
What is it called when you ride around on your front wheel?
Office 365 Outlook has huge fonts - how to make smaller?
What is the least dense liquid under normal conditions?
Does Feeblemind produce an ongoing magical effect that can be dispelled?
Is accepting an invalid credit card number a security issue?
A Paper Record is What I Hamper
std::is_constructible on incomplete types
How to get even lighting when using flash for group photos near wall?
Multiple options vs single option UI
The art of proof summarizing. Are there known rules, or is it a purely common sense matter?
Unicorn Meta Zoo #1: Why another podcast?
Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar ManaraWhy is there never a proof that extending the reals to the complex numbers will not cause contradictions?Natural Deduction - Choosing the assumptionsWhat do people mean by “(this piece of maths) is hard/difficult”?How are long proofs “planned”?Resources for proof-writing in highschool geometryImplication and the Deduction theoremHow to prove ⊢B→(A→B) (no premise) using natural deduction?Prove the undecidability of a formulaProof by Deduction $sqrt{xy} ≤ frac{x+y}{2}$Fitch system, or alternatives?
$begingroup$
When a proof is long and difficult, it can be really nice vis-à-vis the reader to give a summary or an outline of the deduction before beginning hard work.
Are there known rules to give a good proof summary?
Are there known rules to find which point to emphasize in a proof summary? I mean rules to find the "nervus probandi".
logic proof-writing soft-question
$endgroup$
|
show 4 more comments
$begingroup$
When a proof is long and difficult, it can be really nice vis-à-vis the reader to give a summary or an outline of the deduction before beginning hard work.
Are there known rules to give a good proof summary?
Are there known rules to find which point to emphasize in a proof summary? I mean rules to find the "nervus probandi".
logic proof-writing soft-question
$endgroup$
26
$begingroup$
My congratulation. This is the first time that I see a question tagged asproof-writing
which is really about proof-writing.
$endgroup$
– José Carlos Santos
13 hours ago
7
$begingroup$
I think this is a good and difficult question to address. I certainly don't think it is just "common sense". For instance, it may be that a quick outline of the main steps of the argument does not emphasize properly the places where genuinely new ideas come into play. Also, in some cases such an outline may not be too helpful anyway (for instance, there are results where we know that to get to C from A we should prove B and to prove B probably we prove D first; so giving such an outline won't clarify matters, and you will need to delve into specific details to indicate how you succeeded).
$endgroup$
– Andrés E. Caicedo
13 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
On the other hand, there may be cases where the quick outline is really all you need to help guide the reader.
$endgroup$
– Andrés E. Caicedo
13 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
I don't know if there's such a thing, but rules like the inversion principle and cut elimination skim derivations.
$endgroup$
– Simone
13 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
@EleonoreSaintJames, not really difficult; the inversion principle simply states that "whatever follows from the direct grounds for deriving a proposition must follow from that proposition", it's the justification for the elimination rules of natural deduction. Cut elimination is simply a method for pushing up and up an instance of CUT in sequent calculus until it's eliminated; it's what Gentzen used to form his Hauptsatz.
$endgroup$
– Simone
13 hours ago
|
show 4 more comments
$begingroup$
When a proof is long and difficult, it can be really nice vis-à-vis the reader to give a summary or an outline of the deduction before beginning hard work.
Are there known rules to give a good proof summary?
Are there known rules to find which point to emphasize in a proof summary? I mean rules to find the "nervus probandi".
logic proof-writing soft-question
$endgroup$
When a proof is long and difficult, it can be really nice vis-à-vis the reader to give a summary or an outline of the deduction before beginning hard work.
Are there known rules to give a good proof summary?
Are there known rules to find which point to emphasize in a proof summary? I mean rules to find the "nervus probandi".
logic proof-writing soft-question
logic proof-writing soft-question
edited 11 hours ago
YuiTo Cheng
2,82141139
2,82141139
asked 13 hours ago
Eleonore Saint JamesEleonore Saint James
637115
637115
26
$begingroup$
My congratulation. This is the first time that I see a question tagged asproof-writing
which is really about proof-writing.
$endgroup$
– José Carlos Santos
13 hours ago
7
$begingroup$
I think this is a good and difficult question to address. I certainly don't think it is just "common sense". For instance, it may be that a quick outline of the main steps of the argument does not emphasize properly the places where genuinely new ideas come into play. Also, in some cases such an outline may not be too helpful anyway (for instance, there are results where we know that to get to C from A we should prove B and to prove B probably we prove D first; so giving such an outline won't clarify matters, and you will need to delve into specific details to indicate how you succeeded).
$endgroup$
– Andrés E. Caicedo
13 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
On the other hand, there may be cases where the quick outline is really all you need to help guide the reader.
$endgroup$
– Andrés E. Caicedo
13 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
I don't know if there's such a thing, but rules like the inversion principle and cut elimination skim derivations.
$endgroup$
– Simone
13 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
@EleonoreSaintJames, not really difficult; the inversion principle simply states that "whatever follows from the direct grounds for deriving a proposition must follow from that proposition", it's the justification for the elimination rules of natural deduction. Cut elimination is simply a method for pushing up and up an instance of CUT in sequent calculus until it's eliminated; it's what Gentzen used to form his Hauptsatz.
$endgroup$
– Simone
13 hours ago
|
show 4 more comments
26
$begingroup$
My congratulation. This is the first time that I see a question tagged asproof-writing
which is really about proof-writing.
$endgroup$
– José Carlos Santos
13 hours ago
7
$begingroup$
I think this is a good and difficult question to address. I certainly don't think it is just "common sense". For instance, it may be that a quick outline of the main steps of the argument does not emphasize properly the places where genuinely new ideas come into play. Also, in some cases such an outline may not be too helpful anyway (for instance, there are results where we know that to get to C from A we should prove B and to prove B probably we prove D first; so giving such an outline won't clarify matters, and you will need to delve into specific details to indicate how you succeeded).
$endgroup$
– Andrés E. Caicedo
13 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
On the other hand, there may be cases where the quick outline is really all you need to help guide the reader.
$endgroup$
– Andrés E. Caicedo
13 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
I don't know if there's such a thing, but rules like the inversion principle and cut elimination skim derivations.
$endgroup$
– Simone
13 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
@EleonoreSaintJames, not really difficult; the inversion principle simply states that "whatever follows from the direct grounds for deriving a proposition must follow from that proposition", it's the justification for the elimination rules of natural deduction. Cut elimination is simply a method for pushing up and up an instance of CUT in sequent calculus until it's eliminated; it's what Gentzen used to form his Hauptsatz.
$endgroup$
– Simone
13 hours ago
26
26
$begingroup$
My congratulation. This is the first time that I see a question tagged as
proof-writing
which is really about proof-writing.$endgroup$
– José Carlos Santos
13 hours ago
$begingroup$
My congratulation. This is the first time that I see a question tagged as
proof-writing
which is really about proof-writing.$endgroup$
– José Carlos Santos
13 hours ago
7
7
$begingroup$
I think this is a good and difficult question to address. I certainly don't think it is just "common sense". For instance, it may be that a quick outline of the main steps of the argument does not emphasize properly the places where genuinely new ideas come into play. Also, in some cases such an outline may not be too helpful anyway (for instance, there are results where we know that to get to C from A we should prove B and to prove B probably we prove D first; so giving such an outline won't clarify matters, and you will need to delve into specific details to indicate how you succeeded).
$endgroup$
– Andrés E. Caicedo
13 hours ago
$begingroup$
I think this is a good and difficult question to address. I certainly don't think it is just "common sense". For instance, it may be that a quick outline of the main steps of the argument does not emphasize properly the places where genuinely new ideas come into play. Also, in some cases such an outline may not be too helpful anyway (for instance, there are results where we know that to get to C from A we should prove B and to prove B probably we prove D first; so giving such an outline won't clarify matters, and you will need to delve into specific details to indicate how you succeeded).
$endgroup$
– Andrés E. Caicedo
13 hours ago
2
2
$begingroup$
On the other hand, there may be cases where the quick outline is really all you need to help guide the reader.
$endgroup$
– Andrés E. Caicedo
13 hours ago
$begingroup$
On the other hand, there may be cases where the quick outline is really all you need to help guide the reader.
$endgroup$
– Andrés E. Caicedo
13 hours ago
1
1
$begingroup$
I don't know if there's such a thing, but rules like the inversion principle and cut elimination skim derivations.
$endgroup$
– Simone
13 hours ago
$begingroup$
I don't know if there's such a thing, but rules like the inversion principle and cut elimination skim derivations.
$endgroup$
– Simone
13 hours ago
2
2
$begingroup$
@EleonoreSaintJames, not really difficult; the inversion principle simply states that "whatever follows from the direct grounds for deriving a proposition must follow from that proposition", it's the justification for the elimination rules of natural deduction. Cut elimination is simply a method for pushing up and up an instance of CUT in sequent calculus until it's eliminated; it's what Gentzen used to form his Hauptsatz.
$endgroup$
– Simone
13 hours ago
$begingroup$
@EleonoreSaintJames, not really difficult; the inversion principle simply states that "whatever follows from the direct grounds for deriving a proposition must follow from that proposition", it's the justification for the elimination rules of natural deduction. Cut elimination is simply a method for pushing up and up an instance of CUT in sequent calculus until it's eliminated; it's what Gentzen used to form his Hauptsatz.
$endgroup$
– Simone
13 hours ago
|
show 4 more comments
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
I agree with the commentors that this is a difficult question to answer, and what I write here may be only a partial answer. I've not encountered any set of guidelines for summarising a mathematical proof, but in general the same as are used for summarising any large or complex topic can be applied. (If you are interested in mathematical proof in particular you might want to look at https://www.math.wustl.edu/~sk/eolss.pdf which is a history of mathematical proof writing by Steven Krantz.)
A good summary tells the reader what to expect from the story(proof) that follows, should highlight any requisite knowledge, and should motivate the reader into making the effort to follow the argument. If you look at the Bourbaki style of proof, for example, there is often none of this -- a theorem is given and is proved and it is up to the reader to contextualise it, link it to previous work and knowledge and find a reason for remembering it. However if you look at some of Steven Krantz's books you will find that he actually spends the majority of a chapter motivating and explaining the ideas, and relegates the actual mathematical proof to the very end of the chapter -- the complete antithesis of a Bourbaki proof.
To write a good summary the author must understand the material thoroughly: in fact, being able to summarise a proof well is a good indication that the author has properly understood it. If at any point the author finds themselves waving their hands, or glossing over a detail, the chances are that there's something there they themselves don't have clear in their own mind.
As an example then: consider the stalwart of calculus lectures, the Intermediate Value Theorem. This says that if we have a continuous function defined on a contiguous set (a 'closed interval') of points, and one endpoint is smaller than zero while the other is greater than zero, then there is a point inside that interval where the function value is zero. This is nicely summarised by saying "the graph of a continuous function has no breaks in it". This immediately suggests a way to start thinking about it (draw a graph), it connects it to other things the reader already knows about (how to graph a function), and highlights that the reader should know what a continuous function is before proceeding.
EDIT: ruakh points out in the comments that I've summarised the theorem and not the proof, for which I apologise. To summarise the proof then:
Since $f$ is negative at some points and positive at others, and is continuous, we can show that the supremum of the set of negative points is both $0$ and is achieved by $f$. $0$ plays a key role here, so we can expect that we can find points where $f(x)=c$ by considering $f(x)-c$, and that we can find roots of polynomials by finding points $a$ and $b$ with $f(a)<0$ and $f(b)>0$ (which might lead us to the bisection method).
This achieves our goals in summarising: we know what to expect coming up (the study of the set ${x: f(x)<0 }$); we know we need to know what a supremum is, and we can see how we might use this in future.
$endgroup$
2
$begingroup$
@postmortes.Thanks for your answer and for the link to Krantz's paper on the History and Concept of Proof.
$endgroup$
– Eleonore Saint James
13 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
The example in your last paragraph seems strange to me; surely "the graph of a continuous function has no breaks in it" is an informal description of the Intermediate Value Theorem itself, not a summary of its proof?
$endgroup$
– ruakh
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
@ruakh thank-you, you are of course right. I've edited the answer; please feel free to downvote though
$endgroup$
– postmortes
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
@postmortes: Good heavens, I certainly wouldn't downvote for that! Thanks for the edit. :-)
$endgroup$
– ruakh
7 hours ago
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "69"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3200583%2fthe-art-of-proof-summarizing-are-there-known-rules-or-is-it-a-purely-common-se%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
I agree with the commentors that this is a difficult question to answer, and what I write here may be only a partial answer. I've not encountered any set of guidelines for summarising a mathematical proof, but in general the same as are used for summarising any large or complex topic can be applied. (If you are interested in mathematical proof in particular you might want to look at https://www.math.wustl.edu/~sk/eolss.pdf which is a history of mathematical proof writing by Steven Krantz.)
A good summary tells the reader what to expect from the story(proof) that follows, should highlight any requisite knowledge, and should motivate the reader into making the effort to follow the argument. If you look at the Bourbaki style of proof, for example, there is often none of this -- a theorem is given and is proved and it is up to the reader to contextualise it, link it to previous work and knowledge and find a reason for remembering it. However if you look at some of Steven Krantz's books you will find that he actually spends the majority of a chapter motivating and explaining the ideas, and relegates the actual mathematical proof to the very end of the chapter -- the complete antithesis of a Bourbaki proof.
To write a good summary the author must understand the material thoroughly: in fact, being able to summarise a proof well is a good indication that the author has properly understood it. If at any point the author finds themselves waving their hands, or glossing over a detail, the chances are that there's something there they themselves don't have clear in their own mind.
As an example then: consider the stalwart of calculus lectures, the Intermediate Value Theorem. This says that if we have a continuous function defined on a contiguous set (a 'closed interval') of points, and one endpoint is smaller than zero while the other is greater than zero, then there is a point inside that interval where the function value is zero. This is nicely summarised by saying "the graph of a continuous function has no breaks in it". This immediately suggests a way to start thinking about it (draw a graph), it connects it to other things the reader already knows about (how to graph a function), and highlights that the reader should know what a continuous function is before proceeding.
EDIT: ruakh points out in the comments that I've summarised the theorem and not the proof, for which I apologise. To summarise the proof then:
Since $f$ is negative at some points and positive at others, and is continuous, we can show that the supremum of the set of negative points is both $0$ and is achieved by $f$. $0$ plays a key role here, so we can expect that we can find points where $f(x)=c$ by considering $f(x)-c$, and that we can find roots of polynomials by finding points $a$ and $b$ with $f(a)<0$ and $f(b)>0$ (which might lead us to the bisection method).
This achieves our goals in summarising: we know what to expect coming up (the study of the set ${x: f(x)<0 }$); we know we need to know what a supremum is, and we can see how we might use this in future.
$endgroup$
2
$begingroup$
@postmortes.Thanks for your answer and for the link to Krantz's paper on the History and Concept of Proof.
$endgroup$
– Eleonore Saint James
13 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
The example in your last paragraph seems strange to me; surely "the graph of a continuous function has no breaks in it" is an informal description of the Intermediate Value Theorem itself, not a summary of its proof?
$endgroup$
– ruakh
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
@ruakh thank-you, you are of course right. I've edited the answer; please feel free to downvote though
$endgroup$
– postmortes
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
@postmortes: Good heavens, I certainly wouldn't downvote for that! Thanks for the edit. :-)
$endgroup$
– ruakh
7 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I agree with the commentors that this is a difficult question to answer, and what I write here may be only a partial answer. I've not encountered any set of guidelines for summarising a mathematical proof, but in general the same as are used for summarising any large or complex topic can be applied. (If you are interested in mathematical proof in particular you might want to look at https://www.math.wustl.edu/~sk/eolss.pdf which is a history of mathematical proof writing by Steven Krantz.)
A good summary tells the reader what to expect from the story(proof) that follows, should highlight any requisite knowledge, and should motivate the reader into making the effort to follow the argument. If you look at the Bourbaki style of proof, for example, there is often none of this -- a theorem is given and is proved and it is up to the reader to contextualise it, link it to previous work and knowledge and find a reason for remembering it. However if you look at some of Steven Krantz's books you will find that he actually spends the majority of a chapter motivating and explaining the ideas, and relegates the actual mathematical proof to the very end of the chapter -- the complete antithesis of a Bourbaki proof.
To write a good summary the author must understand the material thoroughly: in fact, being able to summarise a proof well is a good indication that the author has properly understood it. If at any point the author finds themselves waving their hands, or glossing over a detail, the chances are that there's something there they themselves don't have clear in their own mind.
As an example then: consider the stalwart of calculus lectures, the Intermediate Value Theorem. This says that if we have a continuous function defined on a contiguous set (a 'closed interval') of points, and one endpoint is smaller than zero while the other is greater than zero, then there is a point inside that interval where the function value is zero. This is nicely summarised by saying "the graph of a continuous function has no breaks in it". This immediately suggests a way to start thinking about it (draw a graph), it connects it to other things the reader already knows about (how to graph a function), and highlights that the reader should know what a continuous function is before proceeding.
EDIT: ruakh points out in the comments that I've summarised the theorem and not the proof, for which I apologise. To summarise the proof then:
Since $f$ is negative at some points and positive at others, and is continuous, we can show that the supremum of the set of negative points is both $0$ and is achieved by $f$. $0$ plays a key role here, so we can expect that we can find points where $f(x)=c$ by considering $f(x)-c$, and that we can find roots of polynomials by finding points $a$ and $b$ with $f(a)<0$ and $f(b)>0$ (which might lead us to the bisection method).
This achieves our goals in summarising: we know what to expect coming up (the study of the set ${x: f(x)<0 }$); we know we need to know what a supremum is, and we can see how we might use this in future.
$endgroup$
2
$begingroup$
@postmortes.Thanks for your answer and for the link to Krantz's paper on the History and Concept of Proof.
$endgroup$
– Eleonore Saint James
13 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
The example in your last paragraph seems strange to me; surely "the graph of a continuous function has no breaks in it" is an informal description of the Intermediate Value Theorem itself, not a summary of its proof?
$endgroup$
– ruakh
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
@ruakh thank-you, you are of course right. I've edited the answer; please feel free to downvote though
$endgroup$
– postmortes
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
@postmortes: Good heavens, I certainly wouldn't downvote for that! Thanks for the edit. :-)
$endgroup$
– ruakh
7 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I agree with the commentors that this is a difficult question to answer, and what I write here may be only a partial answer. I've not encountered any set of guidelines for summarising a mathematical proof, but in general the same as are used for summarising any large or complex topic can be applied. (If you are interested in mathematical proof in particular you might want to look at https://www.math.wustl.edu/~sk/eolss.pdf which is a history of mathematical proof writing by Steven Krantz.)
A good summary tells the reader what to expect from the story(proof) that follows, should highlight any requisite knowledge, and should motivate the reader into making the effort to follow the argument. If you look at the Bourbaki style of proof, for example, there is often none of this -- a theorem is given and is proved and it is up to the reader to contextualise it, link it to previous work and knowledge and find a reason for remembering it. However if you look at some of Steven Krantz's books you will find that he actually spends the majority of a chapter motivating and explaining the ideas, and relegates the actual mathematical proof to the very end of the chapter -- the complete antithesis of a Bourbaki proof.
To write a good summary the author must understand the material thoroughly: in fact, being able to summarise a proof well is a good indication that the author has properly understood it. If at any point the author finds themselves waving their hands, or glossing over a detail, the chances are that there's something there they themselves don't have clear in their own mind.
As an example then: consider the stalwart of calculus lectures, the Intermediate Value Theorem. This says that if we have a continuous function defined on a contiguous set (a 'closed interval') of points, and one endpoint is smaller than zero while the other is greater than zero, then there is a point inside that interval where the function value is zero. This is nicely summarised by saying "the graph of a continuous function has no breaks in it". This immediately suggests a way to start thinking about it (draw a graph), it connects it to other things the reader already knows about (how to graph a function), and highlights that the reader should know what a continuous function is before proceeding.
EDIT: ruakh points out in the comments that I've summarised the theorem and not the proof, for which I apologise. To summarise the proof then:
Since $f$ is negative at some points and positive at others, and is continuous, we can show that the supremum of the set of negative points is both $0$ and is achieved by $f$. $0$ plays a key role here, so we can expect that we can find points where $f(x)=c$ by considering $f(x)-c$, and that we can find roots of polynomials by finding points $a$ and $b$ with $f(a)<0$ and $f(b)>0$ (which might lead us to the bisection method).
This achieves our goals in summarising: we know what to expect coming up (the study of the set ${x: f(x)<0 }$); we know we need to know what a supremum is, and we can see how we might use this in future.
$endgroup$
I agree with the commentors that this is a difficult question to answer, and what I write here may be only a partial answer. I've not encountered any set of guidelines for summarising a mathematical proof, but in general the same as are used for summarising any large or complex topic can be applied. (If you are interested in mathematical proof in particular you might want to look at https://www.math.wustl.edu/~sk/eolss.pdf which is a history of mathematical proof writing by Steven Krantz.)
A good summary tells the reader what to expect from the story(proof) that follows, should highlight any requisite knowledge, and should motivate the reader into making the effort to follow the argument. If you look at the Bourbaki style of proof, for example, there is often none of this -- a theorem is given and is proved and it is up to the reader to contextualise it, link it to previous work and knowledge and find a reason for remembering it. However if you look at some of Steven Krantz's books you will find that he actually spends the majority of a chapter motivating and explaining the ideas, and relegates the actual mathematical proof to the very end of the chapter -- the complete antithesis of a Bourbaki proof.
To write a good summary the author must understand the material thoroughly: in fact, being able to summarise a proof well is a good indication that the author has properly understood it. If at any point the author finds themselves waving their hands, or glossing over a detail, the chances are that there's something there they themselves don't have clear in their own mind.
As an example then: consider the stalwart of calculus lectures, the Intermediate Value Theorem. This says that if we have a continuous function defined on a contiguous set (a 'closed interval') of points, and one endpoint is smaller than zero while the other is greater than zero, then there is a point inside that interval where the function value is zero. This is nicely summarised by saying "the graph of a continuous function has no breaks in it". This immediately suggests a way to start thinking about it (draw a graph), it connects it to other things the reader already knows about (how to graph a function), and highlights that the reader should know what a continuous function is before proceeding.
EDIT: ruakh points out in the comments that I've summarised the theorem and not the proof, for which I apologise. To summarise the proof then:
Since $f$ is negative at some points and positive at others, and is continuous, we can show that the supremum of the set of negative points is both $0$ and is achieved by $f$. $0$ plays a key role here, so we can expect that we can find points where $f(x)=c$ by considering $f(x)-c$, and that we can find roots of polynomials by finding points $a$ and $b$ with $f(a)<0$ and $f(b)>0$ (which might lead us to the bisection method).
This achieves our goals in summarising: we know what to expect coming up (the study of the set ${x: f(x)<0 }$); we know we need to know what a supremum is, and we can see how we might use this in future.
edited 7 hours ago
answered 13 hours ago
postmortespostmortes
2,55031423
2,55031423
2
$begingroup$
@postmortes.Thanks for your answer and for the link to Krantz's paper on the History and Concept of Proof.
$endgroup$
– Eleonore Saint James
13 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
The example in your last paragraph seems strange to me; surely "the graph of a continuous function has no breaks in it" is an informal description of the Intermediate Value Theorem itself, not a summary of its proof?
$endgroup$
– ruakh
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
@ruakh thank-you, you are of course right. I've edited the answer; please feel free to downvote though
$endgroup$
– postmortes
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
@postmortes: Good heavens, I certainly wouldn't downvote for that! Thanks for the edit. :-)
$endgroup$
– ruakh
7 hours ago
add a comment |
2
$begingroup$
@postmortes.Thanks for your answer and for the link to Krantz's paper on the History and Concept of Proof.
$endgroup$
– Eleonore Saint James
13 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
The example in your last paragraph seems strange to me; surely "the graph of a continuous function has no breaks in it" is an informal description of the Intermediate Value Theorem itself, not a summary of its proof?
$endgroup$
– ruakh
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
@ruakh thank-you, you are of course right. I've edited the answer; please feel free to downvote though
$endgroup$
– postmortes
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
@postmortes: Good heavens, I certainly wouldn't downvote for that! Thanks for the edit. :-)
$endgroup$
– ruakh
7 hours ago
2
2
$begingroup$
@postmortes.Thanks for your answer and for the link to Krantz's paper on the History and Concept of Proof.
$endgroup$
– Eleonore Saint James
13 hours ago
$begingroup$
@postmortes.Thanks for your answer and for the link to Krantz's paper on the History and Concept of Proof.
$endgroup$
– Eleonore Saint James
13 hours ago
1
1
$begingroup$
The example in your last paragraph seems strange to me; surely "the graph of a continuous function has no breaks in it" is an informal description of the Intermediate Value Theorem itself, not a summary of its proof?
$endgroup$
– ruakh
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
The example in your last paragraph seems strange to me; surely "the graph of a continuous function has no breaks in it" is an informal description of the Intermediate Value Theorem itself, not a summary of its proof?
$endgroup$
– ruakh
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
@ruakh thank-you, you are of course right. I've edited the answer; please feel free to downvote though
$endgroup$
– postmortes
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
@ruakh thank-you, you are of course right. I've edited the answer; please feel free to downvote though
$endgroup$
– postmortes
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
@postmortes: Good heavens, I certainly wouldn't downvote for that! Thanks for the edit. :-)
$endgroup$
– ruakh
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
@postmortes: Good heavens, I certainly wouldn't downvote for that! Thanks for the edit. :-)
$endgroup$
– ruakh
7 hours ago
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3200583%2fthe-art-of-proof-summarizing-are-there-known-rules-or-is-it-a-purely-common-se%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
26
$begingroup$
My congratulation. This is the first time that I see a question tagged as
proof-writing
which is really about proof-writing.$endgroup$
– José Carlos Santos
13 hours ago
7
$begingroup$
I think this is a good and difficult question to address. I certainly don't think it is just "common sense". For instance, it may be that a quick outline of the main steps of the argument does not emphasize properly the places where genuinely new ideas come into play. Also, in some cases such an outline may not be too helpful anyway (for instance, there are results where we know that to get to C from A we should prove B and to prove B probably we prove D first; so giving such an outline won't clarify matters, and you will need to delve into specific details to indicate how you succeeded).
$endgroup$
– Andrés E. Caicedo
13 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
On the other hand, there may be cases where the quick outline is really all you need to help guide the reader.
$endgroup$
– Andrés E. Caicedo
13 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
I don't know if there's such a thing, but rules like the inversion principle and cut elimination skim derivations.
$endgroup$
– Simone
13 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
@EleonoreSaintJames, not really difficult; the inversion principle simply states that "whatever follows from the direct grounds for deriving a proposition must follow from that proposition", it's the justification for the elimination rules of natural deduction. Cut elimination is simply a method for pushing up and up an instance of CUT in sequent calculus until it's eliminated; it's what Gentzen used to form his Hauptsatz.
$endgroup$
– Simone
13 hours ago