3 ms·

There's no actual requirement for a proof to give you a "why." The steps just all have to be be logically correct and not accidentally, eg, assume what is to be

There's no actual requirement for a proof to give you a "why." The steps just all have to be be logically correct and not accidentally, eg, assume what is to be proven. Lots of proofs are basically unhelpful at giving you a "why," that doesn't disqualify them from being a proof.

oceansea 4y ago
I was using Stanford’s definition. https://web.stanford.edu/class/archive/cs/cs103/cs103.1202/lectures/01/Small01.pdf https://web.stanford.edu/class/archive/cs/cs103/cs103.1202/l...
- yCombLinks 4y ago
  That's a misc slideshow from a class, not a formal definition.
  - oceansea 4y ago
    [flagged]
    - threeseed 4y ago
      Pretty relevant when you're criticising the work of these teenagers because it doesn't meet your definition of a proof.
    - VerminOctopus1 4y ago
      It was a useful comment and your odd defensive posture is the problem here.
- threeseed 4y ago
  That is not Stanford's official definition. That is the definition from one of their Computer Science lecturers. I can't speak to it's accuracy but I would imagine better sources exist.
- mathteddybear 4y ago
  "A mathematical proof is an argument that demonstrates why a mathematical statement is true, following the rules of mathematics." yes, and?
- roywiggins 4y ago
  That definition (as interpreted by you) would appear to, at the very least, preemptively disqualify any proof by exhaustion ("it's true because we brute forced all the possibilities and didn't find any counterexamples"), which is a perfectly valid proof method. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_by_exhaustion https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_by_exhaustion "All the steps are valid but it doesn't explain anything and I'm dissatisfied" is not an argument against a proof's validity. Sometimes the argument is just "A implies B implies C implies D implies E implies P, QED" and as long as you are convinced that each step is valid, you've got to take the proof itself as valid, even if the gestalt isn't satisfying.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]

oceansea 4y ago

I was using Stanford’s definition. https://web.stanford.edu/class/archive/cs/cs103/cs103.1202/lectures/01/Small01.pdf https://web.stanford.edu/class/archive/cs/cs103/cs103.1202/l...

yCombLinks 4y ago
That's a misc slideshow from a class, not a formal definition.
- oceansea 4y ago
  [flagged]
  - threeseed 4y ago
    Pretty relevant when you're criticising the work of these teenagers because it doesn't meet your definition of a proof.
  - VerminOctopus1 4y ago
    It was a useful comment and your odd defensive posture is the problem here.
threeseed 4y ago
That is not Stanford's official definition. That is the definition from one of their Computer Science lecturers. I can't speak to it's accuracy but I would imagine better sources exist.
mathteddybear 4y ago
"A mathematical proof is an argument that demonstrates why a mathematical statement is true, following the rules of mathematics." yes, and?
roywiggins 4y ago
That definition (as interpreted by you) would appear to, at the very least, preemptively disqualify any proof by exhaustion ("it's true because we brute forced all the possibilities and didn't find any counterexamples"), which is a perfectly valid proof method. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_by_exhaustion https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_by_exhaustion "All the steps are valid but it doesn't explain anything and I'm dissatisfied" is not an argument against a proof's validity. Sometimes the argument is just "A implies B implies C implies D implies E implies P, QED" and as long as you are convinced that each step is valid, you've got to take the proof itself as valid, even if the gestalt isn't satisfying.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]