Those both sound like great suggestions to me. > OP, you should try to get someone to work with you. Regardless, if you haven't already done so, I'd recommend learning classical logic if you want to understand proofs. As someone who's self-learning this stuff I've personally found exploring Metamath very helpful for this, because I find it helpful to break things down to the foundations when I'm not sure about a bit of reasoning, and Metamath is good at breaking things down to the foundations.
The hard part is developing a good feel for what's possible within this system and what's not, so that you can start skipping large numbers of steps too. If you start with the axiomatic statements of classical logic + set theory, pretty much all of mathematics can be inferred just by repeatedly applying these two rules to derive more true statements. Second is the rule of generalization, which says "if A is unconditionally true, then for all x A is true". First is modus ponens, which says "if A is true, and if A being true implies that B is true, then B is true". However, when going back to foundations, I've found that how proofs work is surprisingly simple.įor example, in Metamath (which was mentioned in another comment), there are just two inference rules. But this can make it hard for a beginner to understand what reasoning is allowed and what isn't allowed. Mathematicians can skip a lot of steps because they have a good intuition of what's possible and what's not, so it's enough when they know that in principle something could be proven.
0 kommentar(er)
