• 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
Computability
Computability

Furstenberg`s topological proof of the infinitude of primes
Furstenberg`s topological proof of the infinitude of primes

(A B) |– A
(A B) |– A

Lecture Slides
Lecture Slides

Hilbert Calculus
Hilbert Calculus

... The calculus defines a syntactic consequence relation ⊢ (notation: F1 , . . . , Fn ⊢ G), intended to “mirror” semantic consequence. We will have: F1 , . . . , Fn ⊢ G iff F1 , . . . , Fn |= G (syntactic consequence and semantic consequence will coincide). ...
Indirect Proofs - Stanford University
Indirect Proofs - Stanford University

Geometry CP
Geometry CP

... Ex. 1: Solve the following. State the properties of equality used to solve the equation. 2x – 4 = 12 ...
3 Sets
3 Sets

Full text
Full text

... necessary to formulate suitable probability models for the distribution of demands of individual items of supply. One such model, described in [ 1 ] , involves two parameters, to be estimated from available data. ...
Weeks of - Jordan University of Science and Technology
Weeks of - Jordan University of Science and Technology

The Surprise Examination Paradox and the Second Incompleteness
The Surprise Examination Paradox and the Second Incompleteness

Discrete Mathematics
Discrete Mathematics

Rewriting Predicate Logic Statements
Rewriting Predicate Logic Statements

Class notes, rings and modules : some of 23/03/2017 and 04/04/2017
Class notes, rings and modules : some of 23/03/2017 and 04/04/2017

The Surprise Examination Paradox and the Second Incompleteness
The Surprise Examination Paradox and the Second Incompleteness

... for a true statement (over N) that has no proof. The main conceptual difficulty in Gödel’s original proof is the self-reference of the statement “this statement has no proof”. A conceptually simpler proof of the first incompleteness theorem, based on Berry’s paradox, was given by Chaitin [Chaitin71 ...
(A B) |– A
(A B) |– A

... Grundzüge der theoretischen Logik, in which they arrived at exactly this point: they had defined axioms and derivation rules of predicate logic (slightly distinct from the above), and formulated the problem of completeness. They raised a question whether such a proof calculus is complete in the sens ...
MACM 101, D2, 10/01/2007. Lecture 2. Puzzle of the day: How many
MACM 101, D2, 10/01/2007. Lecture 2. Puzzle of the day: How many

... which is the coefficient. The proof of the binomial theorem generalizes this argument. Suppose the monomial is xk y n−k . The coefficient  will be the number of ways to choose k indices of x’s out of n n possibilities, which is k . Pascal triangle (see textbook example 3.14, page 133). Top row is 1 ...
G - web.pdx.edu
G - web.pdx.edu

A relationship between Pascal`s triangle and Fermat numbers
A relationship between Pascal`s triangle and Fermat numbers

... , then it has a binary expansion of the form \axa2 --ak. Next, we observe a pattern forming in the binary construction of an between the levels 2k and 2k+1. For example, the above table shows the pattern above n = 4 being repeated, in duplicate, side by side, down to level ...
Lindenbaum lemma for infinitary logics
Lindenbaum lemma for infinitary logics

A SHORT PROOF FOR THE COMPLETENESS OF
A SHORT PROOF FOR THE COMPLETENESS OF

MATH 351 – FOM HOMEWORK 1. Solutions A. Statement: √ 2 is
MATH 351 – FOM HOMEWORK 1. Solutions A. Statement: √ 2 is

... • If, for n ∈ N, P (n) is true then P (n + 1) is true. are both true, then P (k) is true ∀k ∈ N. (c) Use the Well-Ordering Principle to prove the Principle of Mathematical Induction. Statement: Suppose the Well-Ordering Principle is true. That is, suppose that all nonempty subsets of N contain a lea ...
Notes on Writing Proofs
Notes on Writing Proofs

... composing the first system, we will call points and designate them by the letters A, B, C, . . . ; those of the second, we will call straight lines, and designate them by the letters a, b, c . . . ; and those of the third system, we will call planes and designate them by the Greek letters α, β, γ, . ...
Diagrammatic Reasoning in Separation Logic
Diagrammatic Reasoning in Separation Logic

Notes on Lecture 3 - People @ EECS at UC Berkeley
Notes on Lecture 3 - People @ EECS at UC Berkeley

< 1 ... 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 ... 130 >

Mathematical proof



In mathematics, a proof is a deductive argument for a mathematical statement. In the argument, other previously established statements, such as theorems, can be used. In principle, a proof can be traced back to self-evident or assumed statements, known as axioms. Proofs are examples of deductive reasoning and are distinguished from inductive or empirical arguments; a proof must demonstrate that a statement is always true (occasionally by listing all possible cases and showing that it holds in each), rather than enumerate many confirmatory cases. An unproved proposition that is believed true is known as a conjecture.Proofs employ logic but usually include some amount of natural language which usually admits some ambiguity. In fact, the vast majority of proofs in written mathematics can be considered as applications of rigorous informal logic. Purely formal proofs, written in symbolic language instead of natural language, are considered in proof theory. The distinction between formal and informal proofs has led to much examination of current and historical mathematical practice, quasi-empiricism in mathematics, and so-called folk mathematics (in both senses of that term). The philosophy of mathematics is concerned with the role of language and logic in proofs, and mathematics as a language.
  • studyres.com © 2025
  • DMCA
  • Privacy
  • Terms
  • Report