most recent 30 from http://mathoverflow.net 2013-05-25T23:46:27Z http://mathoverflow.net/feeds/question/80451 http://www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.5/rdf http://mathoverflow.net/questions/80451/casual-tours-around-proofs Michal Kotowski 2011-11-09T04:33:58Z 2011-11-11T10:30:27Z

<p>(this is basically the same question, only in math, as Alessandro Cossentino asked about theoretical computer science at TCS.SE: <a href="http://cstheory.stackexchange.com/questions/8869/casual-tours-around-proofs" rel="nofollow">http://cstheory.stackexchange.com/questions/8869/casual-tours-around-proofs</a>; if a question similar to this one already exists at MO, feel free to close this)</p> <p>Recently Ryan Williams published (see <a href="http://arxiv.org/abs/1111.1261" rel="nofollow">http://arxiv.org/abs/1111.1261</a>) a more "pedagogical" version of his proof in complexity theory concerning NEXP and ACC - in his own words, "the proof will be described from the perspective of someone trying to discover it". The paper discusses more intuition, failed attempts at solving the problem etc. much more extensively than a typical journal paper.</p> <p>Personally I find such efforts extremely valuable, because they give you an opportunity to learn how somebody <em>thinks</em> about mathematics and not only verify the formal correctness of some abstract reasoning.</p> <p>What other examples of such approach are you aware of?</p>

http://mathoverflow.net/questions/80451/casual-tours-around-proofs/80455#80455 Zack Wolske 2011-11-09T06:37:31Z 2011-11-09T06:37:31Z

<p>John Stallings's article "How Not To Prove The Poincare Conjecture", available here <a href="http://math.berkeley.edu/~stall/" rel="nofollow">http://math.berkeley.edu/~stall/</a> walks us through 4 conjectures - with implications between each - which would prove the famous question, if they were actually true. In the end the ideas don't work, but the reader does get a nice glimpse of standard tactics for classifying manifolds, and how one might leap between algebraic and geometric arguments to make the pieces fall into place.</p>

http://mathoverflow.net/questions/80451/casual-tours-around-proofs/80460#80460 Manya 2011-11-09T08:42:28Z 2011-11-09T08:42:28Z

<p>Polya's "Mathematics and Plausible Reasoning" is a good source. In chapter XVI he compares how many textbooks present proofs (which he calls a "deus ex machina" approach) and how it could be done showing the discovery process. The example he uses to illustrate is: If the terms of the sequence a1, a2, a3... are non-negative real numbers not all equal 0, then sum(1, infinity) (a_1, a_2, ...a_n)^1/2 &lt; e sum(1, infinity)a_n.</p>

http://mathoverflow.net/questions/80451/casual-tours-around-proofs/80577#80577 gowers 2011-11-10T10:37:09Z 2011-11-10T10:37:09Z

<p>Timothy Chow's article on forcing (called A Beginner's Guide to Forcing) is one of the best of this general type.</p> <p><a href="http://www-math.mit.edu/~tchow/forcing.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://www-math.mit.edu/~tchow/forcing.pdf</a></p>

http://mathoverflow.net/questions/80451/casual-tours-around-proofs/80673#80673 Amin 2011-11-11T10:30:27Z 2011-11-11T10:30:27Z

<p>Definitely not at the level of an article, but following this idea of explaining the reader what comes to his mind, the book by T. Tao, "Solving mathematical problems, a personal perspective", is a masterpiece in my opinion; even tough it is aimed at solving IMO's level (or a bit lower) problems, it gives good tricks to transpose to higher level problem (where the difference is essentially only knowledge and time to master the theory). </p>