Re: Simple versus formal proof?

Robert Low wrote:
Depends on who you're writing for. Unless you're writing a genuinely
formal proof (which you probably don't want to do unless you're
actually working on logic or set theory) a proof should have enough
detail that the intended reader can say to himself "I can see just
how to fill in the gaps". Gauging this just right is somewhere between
impossible and very impossible, though.

What if your aim is to be able to read books on probability theory and
similar areas more efficiently, and you haven't proved anything for a
long time?

Cheers,

Ross-c

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Math discovery versus math society
    ... >>algorithm to work, it must work ALL THE TIME. ... >>set theory (and the idea of countability) discovered by Cantor over a ... > I know about Cantor, and I know set theory, better than you I'm sure. ... Show us the formal proof of your claim. ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: -- g o g = f
    ... that f is 1-1 then it's nothing but simple set theory. ... since 0 < k-j < n this contradicts the fact that ... "Understanding Godel isn't about following his formal proof. ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: What is a proof, exactly?
    ... >> In Norm Megill's formalization of set theory in Metamath, a formal proof ... The complete proof of a theorem all the way back to axioms can be ... to try to find the longest path back to an ... interesting and important set theory results along the way. ...
    (sci.logic)
  • Re: -- g o g = f
    ... that f is 1-1 then it's nothing but simple set theory. ... Right - g induces a map G on 2-cycles of f. ... "Understanding Godel isn't about following his formal proof. ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Implementable Set Theory and Consistency of ZFC
    ... I want to know which parts of set theory have a counterpart ... There's a LISP formal proof assistant ... So ACL2 can be told what the axioms are, ...
    (sci.math)