• Study Resource
  • Explore
    • Arts & Humanities
    • Business
    • Engineering & Technology
    • Foreign Language
    • History
    • Math
    • Science
    • Social Science

    Top subcategories

    • Advanced Math
    • Algebra
    • Basic Math
    • Calculus
    • Geometry
    • Linear Algebra
    • Pre-Algebra
    • Pre-Calculus
    • Statistics And Probability
    • Trigonometry
    • other →

    Top subcategories

    • Astronomy
    • Astrophysics
    • Biology
    • Chemistry
    • Earth Science
    • Environmental Science
    • Health Science
    • Physics
    • other →

    Top subcategories

    • Anthropology
    • Law
    • Political Science
    • Psychology
    • Sociology
    • other →

    Top subcategories

    • Accounting
    • Economics
    • Finance
    • Management
    • other →

    Top subcategories

    • Aerospace Engineering
    • Bioengineering
    • Chemical Engineering
    • Civil Engineering
    • Computer Science
    • Electrical Engineering
    • Industrial Engineering
    • Mechanical Engineering
    • Web Design
    • other →

    Top subcategories

    • Architecture
    • Communications
    • English
    • Gender Studies
    • Music
    • Performing Arts
    • Philosophy
    • Religious Studies
    • Writing
    • other →

    Top subcategories

    • Ancient History
    • European History
    • US History
    • World History
    • other →

    Top subcategories

    • Croatian
    • Czech
    • Finnish
    • Greek
    • Hindi
    • Japanese
    • Korean
    • Persian
    • Swedish
    • Turkish
    • other →
 
Profile Documents Logout
Upload
Full text
Full text

Reasoning with Quantifiers
Reasoning with Quantifiers

Average Running Time of the Fast Fourier Transform
Average Running Time of the Fast Fourier Transform

A. Pythagoras` Theorem
A. Pythagoras` Theorem

KRIPKE-PLATEK SET THEORY AND THE ANTI
KRIPKE-PLATEK SET THEORY AND THE ANTI

Worksheet I: What is a proof (And what is not a proof)
Worksheet I: What is a proof (And what is not a proof)

Section 5-3b - Austin Mohr
Section 5-3b - Austin Mohr

... Items marked with an asterisk (∗) require you to submit a written explanation or solution. Please form your explanations with complete sentences and in your own words (as though you are explaining the concept to another student in the course). If the problem requires computation, make sure that it i ...
methods of proofs
methods of proofs

Incompleteness Result
Incompleteness Result

... working mathematicians to continue their pursuit to prove or disprove those historically well-known mathematical conjectures. However, the bad news is that Godel also gives us the incompleteness proofs (1931), which in effect apply a self-undermining “Godel sentence” which says that “I am not provab ...
On integers with many small prime factors
On integers with many small prime factors

... much to get as good results as possible, but it should be noted that it is possible to improve upon our results by using not yet published results of Stark and others, or by improving upon the auxiliary results. This is possible because of additional information available here. For the proofs of The ...
Math 142 Group Projects
Math 142 Group Projects

Answers to some typical exercises
Answers to some typical exercises

Mathematical Analysis and Proof. Edition No. 2 Brochure
Mathematical Analysis and Proof. Edition No. 2 Brochure

Godel`s Incompleteness Theorem
Godel`s Incompleteness Theorem

Lecture 6: real numbers One extremely useful property of R that
Lecture 6: real numbers One extremely useful property of R that

[Part 1]
[Part 1]

Review of divisibility and primes
Review of divisibility and primes

On a Symposium on the Foundations of Mathematics (1971) Paul
On a Symposium on the Foundations of Mathematics (1971) Paul

... axioms, as was done simultaneously by A.A. Fraenkel and Thoralf Skolem. The systems presented by W.V. Quine mediated, as it were, between type theory and the systems of axiomatic set theory. It turned out, however, by the results of Kurt Gödel and Skolem, that all such strictly formal frameworks fo ...
Document
Document

...  Note: the construction need not be easy or obvious (most of the time it isn't).  Stare at the problem, think about it, draw pictures (if possible), doodle... eventually something may happen (no guarantee).  The only way you get reasonably proficient at concocting proofs of (simple) theorems is t ...
The Fundamental Theorem of Arithmetic: any integer greater than 1
The Fundamental Theorem of Arithmetic: any integer greater than 1

The First Incompleteness Theorem
The First Incompleteness Theorem

... The terminological situation is a bit messy. Some labels we’ll be using are entirely standard; some are used in importantly different ways by different authors; while some natural ideas seem to have no commonly used labels at all. It might be helpful, then, if I star my own non-standard terminology ...
Full text
Full text

predicate
predicate

DOC - John Woods
DOC - John Woods

... A big question is, “Why do we bother with proof theory?” After all, its principal concepts – axiom, theorem, deduction, proof – have no intuitive meaning there. What’s the point? Suppose we could show that for each of these uninterpreted properties of CPL’s proof theory theory is a unique counterpar ...
The weak and strong laws of large numbers
The weak and strong laws of large numbers

< 1 ... 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 ... 170 >

Theorem



In mathematics, a theorem is a statement that has been proven on the basis of previously established statements, such as other theorems—and generally accepted statements, such as axioms. The proof of a mathematical theorem is a logical argument for the theorem statement given in accord with the rules of a deductive system. The proof of a theorem is often interpreted as justification of the truth of the theorem statement. In light of the requirement that theorems be proved, the concept of a theorem is fundamentally deductive, in contrast to the notion of a scientific theory, which is empirical.Many mathematical theorems are conditional statements. In this case, the proof deduces the conclusion from conditions called hypotheses or premises. In light of the interpretation of proof as justification of truth, the conclusion is often viewed as a necessary consequence of the hypotheses, namely, that the conclusion is true in case the hypotheses are true, without any further assumptions. However, the conditional could be interpreted differently in certain deductive systems, depending on the meanings assigned to the derivation rules and the conditional symbol.Although they can be written in a completely symbolic form, for example, within the propositional calculus, theorems are often expressed in a natural language such as English. The same is true of proofs, which are often expressed as logically organized and clearly worded informal arguments, intended to convince readers of the truth of the statement of the theorem beyond any doubt, and from which a formal symbolic proof can in principle be constructed. Such arguments are typically easier to check than purely symbolic ones—indeed, many mathematicians would express a preference for a proof that not only demonstrates the validity of a theorem, but also explains in some way why it is obviously true. In some cases, a picture alone may be sufficient to prove a theorem. Because theorems lie at the core of mathematics, they are also central to its aesthetics. Theorems are often described as being ""trivial"", or ""difficult"", or ""deep"", or even ""beautiful"". These subjective judgments vary not only from person to person, but also with time: for example, as a proof is simplified or better understood, a theorem that was once difficult may become trivial. On the other hand, a deep theorem may be simply stated, but its proof may involve surprising and subtle connections between disparate areas of mathematics. Fermat's Last Theorem is a particularly well-known example of such a theorem.
  • studyres.com © 2025
  • DMCA
  • Privacy
  • Terms
  • Report