Curso de geometría métrica, Volume 1. Front Cover. Pedro Puig Adam. Nuevas Graficas, QR code for Curso de geometría métrica. Curso de geometría métrica, Volume 1. Front Cover. Pedro Puig Adam. Patronato de Publicaciones de la Escuela Especial de Ingenieros Industriales, Curso de Geometria metrica. Tomo I-Fundamentos, Tomo II-Complementos. P. Puig Adam. Published by Biblioteca matematica, Price: US$
|Published (Last):||4 November 2004|
|PDF File Size:||14.52 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||20.20 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
Should one always place the proof of a theorem after its statement? Sign up using Facebook.
I am aware that it is good practice to include mehrica proofs but if the proof is implied in my explanation leading up to the theorem, is it still necessary to include it formally? I’ve found that doing so leads to clumsy repetition often using the same variables in a slightly different order of the reasoning that lead me to the theorem – because I know proofs should work forwards from your assumptions, whereas my reasoning often works backwards from the result to work out how to get there.
My question is, is it always necessary to then include a formal proof of the theorem after its statement, if I’ve already explained how I got there?
Curso de geometria metrica – Pedro Puig Adam – Google Books
Curso de geometría métrica – Pedro Puig Adam – Google Books
This has prompted me to start using formal ‘lemma, theorem, proof’ formatting which I’ve never done before. For example, a reader that is just looking for a proof of a gievn theorem, will prefer the Theorem – Proof style.
Home Questions Tags Users Unanswered.
Pedro Puig Adam
For this reason I’ve been writing in normal prose, describing my thinking, and arriving every now and then at a main lemma or theorem. Nevertheless, I think that this style has more cons than pros. Reasonings, explanations and from time to time, metrlca as conclussions.