百科问答小站 logo
百科问答小站 font logo



如何高贵冷艳地写数学分析证明题? 第1页

  

user avatar   zhangletao 网友的相关建议: 
      

非常怀疑建议本科生用“显然”、“易得”、“trivial”……这种词汇的人是不是真心了解数学系的暗黑!在教授或助教眼中,这样的词汇至少传递了两个负面信息:1.挑衅阅卷人智商; 2.华丽丽地不懂装懂自欺欺人,明明证不过去了,拿这个做遮掩,妄图糊弄他们浑水摸鱼。一般来说,卷面上或作业中出现这种字眼的,无论证明是否正确,该题都会被扣掉全部分数。所以用这个装高冷的基本上都相当于是高贵冷艳地把脸送上去给别人抽。

  真正装高冷的办法其实就是一个——利用逻辑演算完成全部证明。这方面卓里奇他老人家给我们做出了超贱


(附卓老标志性的贱笑,结合以下内容的观感随便体会一下这种玩法,以及他这两卷《数学分析》背后满满的邪恶lol~)

的示范——

  随便举几个例子,你的证明中不应该出现文字,而应该仅有以下这样的一阶逻辑语句:

这个之所以高冷的原因卓里奇也说得很清楚:

必要时你还得会一些二阶逻辑,比如:


  直到有一天——

在你的眼中,数学归纳法是这样的:

并公理(一堆集合的并集总是允许构造的)是这样的:

以及当你面对命题的否定,能够手速150地刚正面(otherwise, 反证法看着不会耍流氓的你,猥琐地笑了【看你这么**,我就放心了……】…):


基本上神功练成,你可以付诸实践了(本人对由此修炼所导致的后果,以及实践产生的后果概不负责)。

  数学分析是相当基础的数学,只要你想,所有的证明都可以写成这样蛋疼的形式。不过,这样装高冷需要提醒一点——只要其中出现一个单词(哪怕只是“使得”……),逼格立刻降至杀马特。那感觉就像——

。。。

  说到底,装高冷是需要实力的。

  骚年,你配?


user avatar   jasonchen0325 网友的相关建议: 
      

Reddit上有一个讨论, 是一个数学系学生问如果老师不允许在证明里写trivially那应该写什么. 网友集思广益给出了下面各种替换词:

Obviously

Clearly

Anyone can see that

Trivially

Indubitably

It follows that

Evidently

By basic applications of previously proven lemmas,

The proof is left to the reader that

By the Pigeonhole Principle

It goes without saying that

Consequently

By immediate consequence,

Of course

But then again

By symmetry

Without loss of generality,

Anyone with a fifth grade education can see that

I would wager 5 dollars that

By the contrapositive

We need not waste ink in proving that

By Euler

By Fermat

By a simple diagonalization argument,

We all agree that

It would be absurd to deny that

Unquestionably,

Indisputably,

It is plain to see that

It would be embarrassing to miss the fact that

Terry Tao told me in a personal email that

It would be an insult to my time and yours to prove that

Any cretin with half a brain could see that

By Fermat’s Last Theorem,

By the Axiom of Choice,

It is equivalent to the Riemann Hypothesis that

By a simple counting argument,

Simply put,

One’s mind immediately leaps to the conclusion that

By contradiction,

I shudder to think of the poor soul who denies that

It is readily apparent to the casual observer that

With p < 5% we conclude that

It follows from the Zermelo-Fraenkel axioms that

Set theory tells us that

Divine inspiration reveals to us that

Patently,

Needless to say,

By logic

By the Laws of Mathematics

By all means,

With probability 1,

Who could deny that

Assuming the Continuum Hypothesis,

Galois died in order to show us that

There is a marvellous proof (which is too long to write here) that

We proved in class that

Our friends over at Harvard recently discovered that

It is straightforward to show that

By definition,

By a simple assumption,

It is easy to see that

Even you would be able to see that

Everybody knows that

I don’t know why anybody would ask, but

Between you and me,

Unless you accept Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem,

A reliable source has told me

It is a matter of simple arithmetic to show that

Beyond a shadow of a doubt,

When we view this problem as an undecidable residue class whose elements are universal DAGs, we see that

You and I both know that

And there you have it,

And as easy as ABC,

And then as quick as a wink,

If you’ve been paying attention you’d realize that

By circular reasoning we see that

When we make the necessary and sufficient assumptions,

It is beyond the scope of this course to prove that

Only idealogues and sycophants would debate whether

It is an unfortunately common misconception to doubt that

By petitio principii, we assert that

We may take for granted that

For legal reasons I am required to disclose that

It is elementary to show that

I don’t remember why, but you’ll have to trust me that

Following the logical steps, we might conclude

We are all but forced to see that

By the same logic,

I’m not even going to bother to prove that

By Kant’s Categorical imperative,

Everyone and their mother can see that

A child could tell you that

It baffles me that you haven’t already realized that

Notice then that

Just this once I will admit to you that

Using the proper mindset one sees that

Remember the basic laws of common sense:

There is a lovely little argument that shows that

Figure 2 (not shown here) makes it clear that

Alas, would that it were not true that

If I’m being honest with you,

According to the pointy-headed theorists sitting in their Ivory Towers in academia,

We will take as an axiom that

Accept for the moment that

These are your words, not mine, but

A little birdie told me that

I heard through the grapevine that

In the realm of constructive mathematics,

It is a theorem from classical analysis that

Life is too short to prove that

A consequence of IUT is that

As practitioners are generally aware,

It is commonly understood that

As the reader is no doubt cognizant,

As an exercise for the reader, show that

All the cool kids know that

It is not difficult to see that

Behold,

Verify that

In particular,

Moreover,

Yea verily

By inspection,

A trivial but tedious calculation shows that

Suppose by way of contradiction that

By a known theorem,

Henceforth

Recall that

Wherefore said He unto them,

It is the will of the Gods that

It transpires that

We find

As must be obvious to the meanest intellect,

It pleases the symmetry of the world that

Accordingly,

If there be any justice in the world,

It is a matter of fact that

It can be shown that

Implicitly, then

Ipso facto

Which leads us to the conclusion that

Which is to say

That is,

The force of deductive logic then drives one to the conclusion that

Whereafter we find

Assuming the reader’s intellect approaches that of the writer, it should be obvious that

Ergo

With God as my witness,

As a great man once told me,

One would be hard-pressed to disprove that

Even an applied mathematician would concede that

One sees in a trice that

You can convince yourself that

Mama always told me

I know it, you know it, everybody knows that

Even the most incompetent T.A. could see,

This won't be on the test, but

Take it from me,

Axiomatically,

Naturally,

A cursory glance reveals that

As luck would have it,

Through the careful use of common sense,

By the standard argument,

I hope I don’t need to explain that

According to prophecy,

Only a fool would deny that

It is almost obvious that

By method of thinking,

Through sheer force of will,

Intuitively,

I’m sure I don’t need to tell you that

You of all people should realize that

The Math Gods demand that

The clever student will notice

An astute reader will have noticed that

It was once revealed to me in a dream that

Even my grandma knows that

Unless something is horribly wrong,

And now we have all we need to show that

If you use math, you can see that

It holds vacuously that

Now check this out:

Barring causality breakdown, clearly

We don't want to deprive the reader of the joy of discovering for themselves why

One of the Bernoullis probably showed that

Somebody once told me

By extrapolation,

Categorically,

If the reader is sufficiently alert, they will notice that

It’s hard not to prove that

The sophisticated reader will realize that

In this context,

It was Lebesque who first asked whether

As is tradition,

According to local folklore,

We hold these truths to be self-evident that

By simple induction,

In case you weren’t paying attention,

A poor student or a particularly clever dog will realize immediately that

Every student brought up in the American education system is told that

Most experts agree that

Sober readers see that

And would you look at that:

And lo!

By abstract nonsense,

I leave the proof to the suspicious reader that

When one stares at the equations they immediately rearrange themselves to show that

This behooves you to state that

Therefore

The heralds shall sing for generations hence that

If I’ve said it once I’ve said it a thousand times,

Our forefathers built this country on the proposition that

My father told me, and his father before that, and his before that, that

As sure as the sun will rise again tomorrow morning,

The burden of proof is on my opponents to disprove that

If you ask me,

I didn’t think I would have to spell this out, but

For all we know,

Promise me you won’t tell mom, but

It would be a disservice to human intelligence to deny that

Proof of the following has been intentially omitted:

here isn’t enough space in the footnote section to prove that

Someone of your status would understand that

It would stand to reason that

Ostensibly,

The hatred of 10,000 years ensures that

There isn’t enough space in the footnote section to prove that

Simple deduction from peano’s axioms shows

By a careful change of basis we see that

Using Conway’s notation we see that

The TL;DR is that

Certainly,

Surely

An early theorem of Gauss shows that

An English major could deduce that

And Jesus said to his Apostles,

This fact may follow obviously from a theorem, but it's not obvious which theorem you're using:

Word on the streets is that

Assuming an arbitrary alignment of planets, astrology tells us

The voices insist that

Someone whispered to me on the subway yesterday that

For surely all cases,

Indeed,

Legend says that

As if by design,

Come to think of it,

And as if that weren’t enough

reddit.com/r/math/comme




  

相关话题

  2021年高考数学难度如何?大题都有哪些解答思路?毕业之后的你还记得当年考试时的感受吗? 
  想成为数学家或物理学家应该怎么做? 
  有哪些虽然正确但却没啥用的公式? 
  下面这个集合可数吗? 
  现代数学里有哪些本质的结论? 
  如何求圆周上随机 n 点构成的 n 边凸包的平均面积? 
  如果让你来编排义务教育阶段至高中的数学课本,你会怎么编排? 
  请问你见过的最强的公式是什么? 
  既然10/3等于3.3333除不尽,那为什么一根10米的绳子却能分成三等份? 
  如何证明这个数列$$a_{n}=sum_{i=1}^{n}(-1)^{⌊ix⌋}$$无界? 

前一个讨论
为什么三角形内角和一定是 180 度?
下一个讨论
函数(满足一定条件)能不能以无穷乘积的形式展开?





© 2024-05-14 - tinynew.org. All Rights Reserved.
© 2024-05-14 - tinynew.org. 保留所有权利