Difference between revisions of "Proof (logic)" - New World Encyclopedia

From New World Encyclopedia
Line 1: Line 1:
 
{{claimed}}
 
{{claimed}}
  
Editor note: Wiki article is '''Proof theory'''. Modify the article and add explanation about '''Proof.''' Wikipedia has separate articles on some subsections. If you used/copied from these articles, let me know which ones you used. I need to add credit tags for those articles. (delete this note when you start this article) Noda
+
In [[mathematics]], a '''proof''' is a demonstration that, assuming certain [[axiom]]s, some statement is necessarily true. A proof is a [[logic|logical]] argument, not an [[empirical]] one. That is, one must demonstrate that a proposition is true in all cases before it is considered a [[theorem]] of mathematics. An unproven proposition for which there is some sort of empirical evidence is known as a [[conjecture]]. In virtually all branches of mathematics, the assumed axioms are [[Zermelo–Fraenkel set theory|ZFC]] (Zermelo–Fraenkel set theory, with the axiom of choice), unless indicated otherwise. ZFC formalizes mathematical intuition about [[set theory]], and set theory suffices to describe contemporary [[algebra]] and [[Mathematical analysis|analysis]].  
  
'''Proof theory''' is a branch of [[mathematical logic]] that represents [[Mathematical proof|proof]]s as formal mathematical objects, facilitating their analysis by mathematical techniques.  Proofs are typically presented as inductively-defined [[data structures]] such as plain lists, boxed lists, or trees, which are constructed according to the [[axiom]]s and [[rule of inference|rules of inference]] of the logical system.  As such, proof theory is [[syntax (logic)|syntactic]] in nature, in contrast to [[model theory]], which is [[semantics of logic|semantic]] in natureTogether with model theory, [[axiomatic set theory]], and [[recursion theory]], proof theory is one of the so-called ''four pillars'' of the [[foundations of mathematics]].
+
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 [[informal logic]]. Purely formal proofs 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]].
  
Proof theory can also be considered a branch of [[philosophical logic]], where the primary interest is in the idea of a [[proof-theoretic semantics]], an idea which depends upon technical ideas in [[structural proof theory]] to be feasible.
+
Regardless of one's attitude to formalism, the result that is proved to be true is a theorem; in a completely formal proof it would be the final line, and the complete proof shows how it follows from the axioms alone. Once a theorem is proved, it can be used as the basis to prove further statements.  The axioms are those statements one cannot, or need not, prove.  These were once the primary study of philosophers of mathematics. Today focus is more on [[mathematical practice|practice]], i.e. acceptable techniques.
  
==History==
+
==Methods of proof==
Although the formalisation of logic was much advanced by the work of such figures as [[Gottlob Frege]], [[Giuseppe Peano]], [[Bertrand Russell]], and [[Richard Dedekind]], the story of modern proof theory is often seen as being established by [[David Hilbert]], who initiated what is called [[Hilbert's program]] in the [[foundations of mathematics]].  [[Kurt Gödel]]'s seminal work on proof theory first advanced, then refuted this program: his [[Gödel's completeness theorem|completeness theorem]] initially seemed to bode well for Hilbert's aim of reducing all mathematics to a finitist formal system; then his [[Gödel's incompleteness theorem|incompleteness theorems]] showed that this is unattainable.  All of this work was carried out with the proof calculi called the [[Hilbert systems]].
+
===Direct proof===
 +
{{main|Direct proof}}
 +
In '''direct proof''', the conclusion is established by logically combining the axioms, definitions, and earlier theorems. For example, direct proof can be used to establish that the sum of two [[Even and odd numbers|even]] [[integer|integers]] is always even:
  
In parallel with the proof theoretic work of Gödel, [[Gerhard Gentzen]] was laying the foundations of what is now known as structural proof theory. In a few short years, Gentzen introduced the core formalisms of [[natural deduction]] (simultaneously with and independently of Jaskowski) and the [[sequent calculus]], made fundamental advances in the formalisation of intuitionistic logic, introduced the important idea of [[analytic proof]], and provided the first combinatorial proof of the consistency of [[Peano arithmetic]].
+
:For any two even integers <math>x</math> and <math>y</math> we can write <math>x=2a</math> and <math>y=2b</math> for some integers <math>a</math> and <math>b</math>, since both <math>x</math> and <math>y</math> are multiples of 2. But the sum <math>x+y = 2a + 2b = 2(a+b)</math> is also a multiple of 2, so it is therefore even by definition.
  
==Formal and informal proof==
+
This proof uses definition of even integers, as well as [[distributivity|distribution law]].
  
The ''informal'' proofs of everyday mathematical practice are unlike the ''formal'' proofs of proof theory. They are rather like high-level sketches that would allow an expert to reconstruct a formal proof at least in principle, given enough time and patience. For most mathematicians, writing a fully formal proof would have all the drawbacks of programming in [[machine code]].
+
===Proof by induction===
 +
{{main|Mathematical induction}}
 +
In '''proof by induction''', first a "base case" is proved, and then an "induction rule" is used to prove a (often [[infinite]]) series of other cases. Since the base case is true, the infinity of other cases must also be true, even if all of them cannot be proved directly because of their infinite number. A subset of induction is [[Infinite descent]]. Infinite descent can be used to prove the [[Square root of 2#Proof of irrationality|irrationality of the square root of two]].
  
Formal proofs are constructed with the help of computers in [[automated theorem proving]].
+
The principle of mathematical induction states that:
Significantly, these proofs can be checked automatically, also by computer. (Checking formal proofs is usually trivial, whereas finding proofs is typically quite hard.) An informal proof in the mathematics literature, by contrast, requires weeks of [[peer review]] to be checked, and may still contain errors.
+
Let  ''N'' = { 1, 2, 3, 4, ... } be the set of natural numbers and '''''P(''n'')''''' be a mathematical statement involving the natural number ''n'' belonging to '''N''' such that
 +
'''''(i)''''' ''P''(1) is true, ie, ''P''(''n'') is true for ''n'' = 1
 +
'''''(ii)''''' ''P''(''m''&nbsp;+&nbsp;1) is true whenever ''P''(''m'') is true, ie, ''P''(''m'') is true implies that
 +
''P''(''m''&nbsp;+&nbsp;1) is true.
 +
'''Then ''P''(''n'') is true for the set of natural numbers ''N''.'''
  
==Kinds of proof calculi==
+
===Proof by transposition===
 +
{{main|Transposition (logic)}}
 +
'''Proof by Transposition''' establishes the conclusion "if ''p'' then ''q''" by proving the equivalent [[contrapositive]] statement "if ''not q'' then ''not p''".
  
The three most well-known styles of proof calculi are:
+
===Proof by contradiction===
*The [[Hilbert systems|Hilbert calculi]]
+
{{main|Reductio ad absurdum}}
*The [[natural deduction calculus|natural deduction calculi]]
+
In '''proof by contradiction''' (also known as ''reductio ad absurdum'', Latin for "reduction into the absurd"), it is shown that if some statement were false, a logical contradiction occurs, hence the statement must be true. This method is perhaps the most prevalent of mathematical proofs. A famous example of a proof by contradiction shows that <math>\sqrt{2}</math> is [[Irrational number|irrational]]:
*The [[sequent calculus|sequent calculi]]
 
  
Each of these can give a complete and axiomatic formalization of [[propositional logic|propositional]] or [[predicate logic|predicate]] logic of either the [[classical logic|classical]] or [[intuitionistic logic|intuitionistic]] flavour, almost any [[modal logic]], and many [[substructural logic]]s, such as [[relevance logic]] or
+
:Suppose that <math>\sqrt{2}</math> is rational, so <math>\sqrt{2} = {a\over b}</math> where ''a'' and ''b'' are non-zero integers with no common factor (definition of rational number). Thus, <math>b\sqrt{2} = a</math>. Squaring both sides yields 2''b''<sup>2</sup> = ''a''<sup>2</sup>. Since 2 divides the left hand side, 2 must also divide the right hand side (as they are equal and both integers). So ''a''<sup>2</sup> is even, which implies that ''a'' must also be even. So we can write ''a'' = 2''c'', where ''c'' is also an integer. Substitution into the original equation yields 2''b''<sup>2</sup> = (2''c'')<sup>2</sup> = 4''c''<sup>2</sup>. Dividing both sides by 2 yields ''b''<sup>2</sup> = 2''c''<sup>2</sup>. But then, by the same argument as before, 2 divides ''b''<sup>2</sup>, so ''b'' must be even. However, if ''a'' and ''b'' are both even, they share a factor, namely 2. This contradicts our assumption, so we are forced to conclude that <math>\sqrt{2}</math> is irrational.
[[linear logic]]. Indeed it is unusual to find a logic that resists being represented in one of these calculi.
 
  
==Consistency proofs==
+
===Proof by construction===
''Main article: [[Consistency proof]]''
+
{{main|Proof by construction}}
 +
'''Proof by construction''', or proof by example, is the construction of a concrete example with a property to show that something having that property exists. [[Joseph Liouville]], for instance, proved the existence of [[transcendental number]]s by constructing an [[Liouville number|explicit example]].
  
As previously mentioned, the spur for the mathematical investigation of proofs in formal theories was [[Hilbert's program]]. The central idea of this program was that if we could give finitary proofs of consistency for all the sophisticated formal theories needed by mathematicians, then we could ground these theories by means of a metamathematical argument, which shows that all of their purely universal assertions (more technically their provable [[arithmetical hierarchy|Π<sup>0</sup><sub>1</sub> sentences]]) are finitarily true; once so grounded we do not care about the non-finitary meaning of their existential theorems, regarding these as pseudo-meaningful stipulations of the existence of ideal entities.
+
===Proof by exhaustion===
 +
{{main|Proof by exhaustion}}
 +
In '''Proof by exhaustion''', the conclusion is established by dividing it into a finite number of cases and proving each one separately. The number of cases sometimes can become very large. For example, the first proof of the [[four colour theorem]] was a proof by exhaustion with 1,936 cases. This proof was controversial because the majority of the cases were checked by a computer program, not by hand. The shortest known proof of the four colour theorem today still has over 600 cases.
  
The failure of the program was induced by [[Kurt Gödel]]'s [[Gödel's incompleteness theorems|incompleteness theorems]], which showed that any [[ω-consistent theory]] that is sufficiently strong to express certain simple arithmetic truths, cannot prove its own consistency, which on Gödel's formulation is a <math>\Pi^0_1</math>  sentence.
+
===Probabilistic proof===
 +
{{main|Probabilistic method}}
 +
A '''probabilistic proof''' is one in which an example is shown to exist by methods of [[probability theory]] - not an argument that a theorem is 'probably' true. The latter type of reasoning can be called a 'plausibility argument'; in the case of the [[Collatz conjecture]] it is clear how far that is from a genuine proof. Probabilistic proof, like proof by construction, is one of many ways to show [[existence theorem]]s.
  
Much investigation has been carried out on this topic since, which has in particular led to:
+
===Combinatorial proof===
*Refinement of Gödel's result, particularly [[J. Barkley Rosser]]'s refinement, weakening the above requirement of ω-consistency to simple consistency;
+
{{main|Combinatorial proof}}
*Axiomatisation of the core of Gödel's result in terms of a modal language, [[provability logic]];
+
A '''combinatorial proof''' establishes the equivalence of different expressions by showing that they count the same object in different ways. Usually a [[bijection]] is used to show that the two interpretations give the same result.
*Transfinite iteration of theories, due to [[Alan Turing]] and [[Solomon Feferman]];
 
*The recent discovery of [[self-verifying theories]], systems strong enough to talk about themselves, but too weak to carry out the diagonal argument that is the key to Gödel's unprovability argument.
 
  
==Structural proof theory==
+
===Nonconstructive proof===
''Main article: [[Structural proof theory]]''
+
{{main|Nonconstructive proof}}
 +
A '''nonconstructive proof''' establishes that a certain mathematical object must exist (e.g. "Some X satisfies f(X)"), without explaining how such an object can be found. Often, this takes the form of a proof by contradiction in which the nonexistence of the object is proven to be impossible. In contrast, a constructive proof establishes that a particular object exists by providing a method of finding it.
  
Structural proof theory is the subdiscipline of proof theory that studies proof calculi that support a notion of [[analytic proof]].  The notion of analytic proof was introduced by Gentzen for the sequent calculus; there the analytic proofs are those that are [[cut-elimination theorem|cut-free]].  His natural deduction calculus also supports a notion of analytic proof, as shown by [[Dag Prawitz]]. The definition is slightly more complex: we say the analytic proofs are the [[Natural deduction#normal form|normal forms]], which are related to the notion of normal form in term rewriting.  More exotic proof calculi such as [[Jean-Yves Girard]]'s [[proof net]]s also support a notion of analytic proof.
+
===Proof nor disproof===
 +
There is a class of mathematical formulae for which neither a proof nor disproof exists, using only the standard ZFC axioms. This result is known as [[Gödel's incompleteness theorem|Gödel's (first) incompleteness theorem]] and examples include the [[continuum hypothesis]]. Whether a particular unproven proposition can be proved using a standard set of axioms is not always obvious, and can be extremely technical to determine.
  
Structural proof theory is connected to [[type theory]] by means of the [[Curry-Howard correspondence]], which observes a structural analogy between the process of normalisation in the natural deduction calculus and beta reduction in the [[typed lambda calculus]]. This provides the foundation for the [[intuitionistic type theory]] developed by [[Per Martin-Löf]], and is often extended to a three way correspondence, the third leg of which are the [[cartesian closed category|cartesian closed categories]].
+
===Elementary proof===
 +
{{main|Elementary proof}}
 +
An elementary proof is (usually) a proof which does not use complex analysis. For some time it was thought that certain theorems, like the [[prime number theorem]], could only be proved using "higher" mathematics. However, over time, many of these results have been reproved using only elementary techniques.
  
In [[linguistics]], [[type-logical grammar]], [[categorial grammar]] and [[Montague grammar]] apply formalisms based on structural proof theory to give a formal [[natural language semantics]].
+
==End of a proof==
  
==Tableau systems==
+
{{main|Q.E.D.}} 
''Main article: [[Method of analytic tableaux|Tableau systems]]''
 
  
Tableau systems apply the central idea of analytic proof from structural proof theory to provide decision procedures and semi-decision procedures for a wide range of logics.
+
Sometimes, the abbreviation ''"Q.E.D."'' is written to indicate the end of a proof. This abbreviation stands for ''"Quod Erat Demonstrandum"'', which is [[Latin]] for ''"that which was to be demonstrated"''. An alternative is to use a small rectangle with its shorter side horizontal ({{Unicode|∎}}), known as a [[tombstone (typography)|tombstone]] or [[tombstone (typography)|halmos]].
  
==Ordinal analysis==
+
==See also==
''Main article: [[Ordinal analysis]]''
+
* [[proof theory]]
 
+
* [[model theory]]
Ordinal analysis is a powerful technique for providing combinatorial consistency proofs for theories formalising arithmetic and analysis.
+
* [[computer-aided proof]]
 
+
* [[automated theorem proving]]
==Substructural logics==
+
* [[invalid proof]]
''Main article: [[Substructural logic]]''
+
* [[nonconstructive proof]]
 +
* [[list of mathematical proofs]]
 +
* [[Proofs from THE BOOK]]
  
==See also==
+
== References ==
 +
*Solow, D. ''How to Read and Do Proofs: An Introduction to Mathematical Thought Processes''.  Wiley, 2004. ISBN 0-471-68058-3
 +
*Velleman, D. ''How to Prove It: A Structured Approach''.  Cambridge University Press, 2006. ISBN 0-521-67599-5
  
*[[Proof techniques]]
+
==External links==
*[[Intermediate logics]]
 
*[[Proof-theoretic semantics]]
 
  
==References==
+
* [http://www.math.uconn.edu/~hurley/math315/proofgoldberger.pdf What are mathematical proofs and why they are important?]
 +
* [http://zimmer.csufresno.edu/~larryc/proofs/proofs.html How To Write Proofs] by Larry W. Cusick
 +
* [http://research.microsoft.com/users/lamport/pubs/lamport-how-to-write.pdf How to Write a Proof] by [[Leslie Lamport]], and [http://research.microsoft.com/users/lamport/pubs/pubs.html#lamport-how-to-write the motivation of proposing such a hierarchical proof style].
 +
* [http://www.cut-the-knot.org/proofs/index.shtml Proofs in Mathematics: Simple, Charming and Fallacious]
 +
* ''[http://www.cs.ru.nl/~freek/comparison/comparison.pdf The Seventeen Provers of the World]'', ed. by Freek Wiedijk, foreword by Dana S. Scott, Lecture Notes in Computer Science 3600, Springer, 2006, ISBN 3-540-30704-4.  Contains formalized versions of the proof that <math>\sqrt{2}</math> is irrational in several automated proof systems.
 +
* [http://www.cut-the-knot.org/WhatIs/WhatIsProof.shtml What is Proof?] Thoughts on proofs and proving.
  
*J. Avigad, E.H. Reck, 2001 .[http://www.andrew.cmu.edu/user/avigad/Papers/infinite.pdf “Clarifying the nature of the infinite”: the development of metamathematics and proof theory].  Carnegie-Mellon Technical Report CMU-PHIL-120.
+
{{Link FA|cs}}
*A. S. Troelstra, H. Schwichtenberg. ''Basic Proof Theory'' (Cambridge Tracts in Theoretical Computer Science). Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-77911-1
 
*G. Gentzen.  Investigations into logical deduction.  In M. E. Szabo, editor, ''Collected Papers of Gerhard Gentzen''. North-Holland, 1969.
 
  
[[Category:Logic]]
+
[[Category:Mathematical logic]]
[[Category:Mathematical logic|*P]]
+
[[Category:Proofs| ]]
[[Category:Proof theory|*]]
 
  
 +
[[ar:برهان رياضي]]
 +
[[zh-min-nan:Chèng-bêng]]
 +
[[ca:Demostració matemàtica]]
 +
[[cs:Matematický důkaz]]
 +
[[da:Bevis (matematik)]]
 +
[[de:Beweis (Mathematik)]]
 +
[[es:Demostración matemática]]
 +
[[fa:برهان]]
 +
[[fr:Démonstration]]
 +
[[zh-classical:證明]]
 +
[[ko:증명]]
 +
[[is:Stærðfræðileg sönnun]]
 +
[[it:Dimostrazione matematica]]
 +
[[he:הוכחה]]
 +
[[ka:დამტკიცება]]
 +
[[hu:Matematikai bizonyítás]]
 +
[[mk:Математички доказ]]
 +
[[nl:Wiskundig bewijs]]
 +
[[ja:証明]]
 +
[[no:Matematisk bevis]]
 +
[[nds:Bewies (Mathematik)]]
 +
[[pl:Dowód (matematyka)]]
 +
[[pt:Prova matemática]]
 +
[[ru:Математическое доказательство]]
 +
[[sl:Matematični dokaz]]
 +
[[fi:Matemaattinen todistus]]
 +
[[th:การพิสูจน์]]
 +
[[vi:Chứng minh định lý]]
 +
[[tr:Matematiksel tanıt]]
 +
[[zh:證明]]
 
{{credits|Proof_theory|136451713|Mathematical_proof|153689776}}
 
{{credits|Proof_theory|136451713|Mathematical_proof|153689776}}

Revision as of 08:54, 11 September 2007


In mathematics, a proof is a demonstration that, assuming certain axioms, some statement is necessarily true. A proof is a logical argument, not an empirical one. That is, one must demonstrate that a proposition is true in all cases before it is considered a theorem of mathematics. An unproven proposition for which there is some sort of empirical evidence is known as a conjecture. In virtually all branches of mathematics, the assumed axioms are ZFC (Zermelo–Fraenkel set theory, with the axiom of choice), unless indicated otherwise. ZFC formalizes mathematical intuition about set theory, and set theory suffices to describe contemporary algebra and analysis.

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 informal logic. Purely formal proofs 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.

Regardless of one's attitude to formalism, the result that is proved to be true is a theorem; in a completely formal proof it would be the final line, and the complete proof shows how it follows from the axioms alone. Once a theorem is proved, it can be used as the basis to prove further statements. The axioms are those statements one cannot, or need not, prove. These were once the primary study of philosophers of mathematics. Today focus is more on practice, i.e. acceptable techniques.

Methods of proof

Direct proof

In direct proof, the conclusion is established by logically combining the axioms, definitions, and earlier theorems. For example, direct proof can be used to establish that the sum of two even integers is always even:

For any two even integers and we can write and for some integers and , since both and are multiples of 2. But the sum is also a multiple of 2, so it is therefore even by definition.

This proof uses definition of even integers, as well as distribution law.

Proof by induction

In proof by induction, first a "base case" is proved, and then an "induction rule" is used to prove a (often infinite) series of other cases. Since the base case is true, the infinity of other cases must also be true, even if all of them cannot be proved directly because of their infinite number. A subset of induction is Infinite descent. Infinite descent can be used to prove the irrationality of the square root of two.

The principle of mathematical induction states that: Let N = { 1, 2, 3, 4, ... } be the set of natural numbers and P(n) be a mathematical statement involving the natural number n belonging to N such that (i) P(1) is true, ie, P(n) is true for n = 1 (ii) P(m + 1) is true whenever P(m) is true, ie, P(m) is true implies that P(m + 1) is true. Then P(n) is true for the set of natural numbers N.

Proof by transposition

Proof by Transposition establishes the conclusion "if p then q" by proving the equivalent contrapositive statement "if not q then not p".

Proof by contradiction

Main article: Reductio ad absurdum

In proof by contradiction (also known as reductio ad absurdum, Latin for "reduction into the absurd"), it is shown that if some statement were false, a logical contradiction occurs, hence the statement must be true. This method is perhaps the most prevalent of mathematical proofs. A famous example of a proof by contradiction shows that is irrational:

Suppose that is rational, so where a and b are non-zero integers with no common factor (definition of rational number). Thus, . Squaring both sides yields 2b2 = a2. Since 2 divides the left hand side, 2 must also divide the right hand side (as they are equal and both integers). So a2 is even, which implies that a must also be even. So we can write a = 2c, where c is also an integer. Substitution into the original equation yields 2b2 = (2c)2 = 4c2. Dividing both sides by 2 yields b2 = 2c2. But then, by the same argument as before, 2 divides b2, so b must be even. However, if a and b are both even, they share a factor, namely 2. This contradicts our assumption, so we are forced to conclude that is irrational.

Proof by construction

Proof by construction, or proof by example, is the construction of a concrete example with a property to show that something having that property exists. Joseph Liouville, for instance, proved the existence of transcendental numbers by constructing an explicit example.

Proof by exhaustion

In Proof by exhaustion, the conclusion is established by dividing it into a finite number of cases and proving each one separately. The number of cases sometimes can become very large. For example, the first proof of the four colour theorem was a proof by exhaustion with 1,936 cases. This proof was controversial because the majority of the cases were checked by a computer program, not by hand. The shortest known proof of the four colour theorem today still has over 600 cases.

Probabilistic proof

A probabilistic proof is one in which an example is shown to exist by methods of probability theory - not an argument that a theorem is 'probably' true. The latter type of reasoning can be called a 'plausibility argument'; in the case of the Collatz conjecture it is clear how far that is from a genuine proof. Probabilistic proof, like proof by construction, is one of many ways to show existence theorems.

Combinatorial proof

A combinatorial proof establishes the equivalence of different expressions by showing that they count the same object in different ways. Usually a bijection is used to show that the two interpretations give the same result.

Nonconstructive proof

A nonconstructive proof establishes that a certain mathematical object must exist (e.g. "Some X satisfies f(X)"), without explaining how such an object can be found. Often, this takes the form of a proof by contradiction in which the nonexistence of the object is proven to be impossible. In contrast, a constructive proof establishes that a particular object exists by providing a method of finding it.

Proof nor disproof

There is a class of mathematical formulae for which neither a proof nor disproof exists, using only the standard ZFC axioms. This result is known as Gödel's (first) incompleteness theorem and examples include the continuum hypothesis. Whether a particular unproven proposition can be proved using a standard set of axioms is not always obvious, and can be extremely technical to determine.

Elementary proof

An elementary proof is (usually) a proof which does not use complex analysis. For some time it was thought that certain theorems, like the prime number theorem, could only be proved using "higher" mathematics. However, over time, many of these results have been reproved using only elementary techniques.

End of a proof

Sometimes, the abbreviation "Q.E.D." is written to indicate the end of a proof. This abbreviation stands for "Quod Erat Demonstrandum", which is Latin for "that which was to be demonstrated". An alternative is to use a small rectangle with its shorter side horizontal (), known as a tombstone or halmos.

See also

  • proof theory
  • model theory
  • computer-aided proof
  • automated theorem proving
  • invalid proof
  • nonconstructive proof
  • list of mathematical proofs
  • Proofs from THE BOOK

References
ISBN links support NWE through referral fees

  • Solow, D. How to Read and Do Proofs: An Introduction to Mathematical Thought Processes. Wiley, 2004. ISBN 0-471-68058-3
  • Velleman, D. How to Prove It: A Structured Approach. Cambridge University Press, 2006. ISBN 0-521-67599-5

External links

ar:برهان رياضي zh-min-nan:Chèng-bêng ca:Demostració matemàtica cs:Matematický důkaz da:Bevis (matematik) de:Beweis (Mathematik) es:Demostración matemática fa:برهان fr:Démonstration zh-classical:證明 ko:증명 is:Stærðfræðileg sönnun it:Dimostrazione matematica he:הוכחה ka:დამტკიცება hu:Matematikai bizonyítás mk:Математички доказ nl:Wiskundig bewijs ja:証明 no:Matematisk bevis nds:Bewies (Mathematik) pl:Dowód (matematyka) pt:Prova matemática ru:Математическое доказательство sl:Matematični dokaz fi:Matemaattinen todistus th:การพิสูจน์ vi:Chứng minh định lý tr:Matematiksel tanıt zh:證明

Credits

New World Encyclopedia writers and editors rewrote and completed the Wikipedia article in accordance with New World Encyclopedia standards. This article abides by terms of the Creative Commons CC-by-sa 3.0 License (CC-by-sa), which may be used and disseminated with proper attribution. Credit is due under the terms of this license that can reference both the New World Encyclopedia contributors and the selfless volunteer contributors of the Wikimedia Foundation. To cite this article click here for a list of acceptable citing formats.The history of earlier contributions by wikipedians is accessible to researchers here:

The history of this article since it was imported to New World Encyclopedia:

Note: Some restrictions may apply to use of individual images which are separately licensed.