Revisions to Which way for reading the proofs?

edited tags

Link

edited Apr 20, 2015 at 21:55

user9072

Post Made Community Wiki by Todd Trimble

occurred Mar 24, 2015 at 15:18

deleted 5 characters in body

Source Link

edited Mar 24, 2015 at 9:02

Mohammad Ghiasi

1.1k
8
19

I am a master student in mathematics. For me a large part of doing mathematics is thinking about, reading and verifying the proof of theoremtheorems that I find them in my field of study. I can do this action in 3 ways:

When I see a theorem I get a paper and think to prove it: this action takes time a lot and maybe I couldn't prove it after thinking for a lot of time.
Finding the proof of the theorem in a book or in the internet and begin reading, going step by step with proof,understanding and verifying all steps: this action may takes time a lot and maybe it is not necessary that I read all steps and it's better that that I jump from not important steps (but how I can find that a step is not important?).
Finding the proof of the theorem and just read it like reading a newspaper for finding the sketch of the proof: this action is good because of its speed but maybe there be some important details in the proof that weI couldn't see them in this type of reading.

My questions:

What is the way that famous mathematicians like Fields medalists take for reading the proofs usually?
Which way is the the best for which proofs? (For example classifying proofs and saying that the first way is good for the first class and...)

I am a master student in mathematics. For me a large part of doing mathematics is thinking about, reading and verifying the proof of theorem that I find them in my field of study. I can do this action in 3 ways:

When I see a theorem I get a paper and think to prove it: this action takes time a lot and maybe I couldn't prove it after thinking for a lot of time.
Finding the proof of the theorem in a book or in the internet and begin reading, going step by step with proof,understanding and verifying all steps: this action may takes time a lot and maybe it is not necessary that I read all steps and it's better that that I jump from not important steps (but how I can find that a step is not important?).
Finding the proof of the theorem and just read it like reading a newspaper for finding the sketch of the proof: this action is good because of its speed but maybe there be some important details in the proof that we couldn't see them in this type of reading.

My questions:

What is the way that famous mathematicians like Fields medalists take for reading the proofs usually?
Which way is the the best for which proofs? (For example classifying proofs and saying that the first way is good for the first class and...)

I am a master student in mathematics. For me a large part of doing mathematics is thinking about, reading and verifying the proof of theorems that I find them in my field of study. I can do this action in 3 ways:

When I see a theorem I get a paper and think to prove it: this action takes time a lot and maybe I couldn't prove it after thinking for a lot of time.
Finding the proof of the theorem in a book or in the internet and begin reading, going step by step with proof,understanding and verifying all steps: this action may takes time a lot and maybe it is not necessary that I read all steps and it's better that I jump from not important steps (but how I can find that a step is not important?).
Finding the proof of the theorem and just read it like reading a newspaper for finding the sketch of the proof: this action is good because of its speed but maybe there be some important details in the proof that I couldn't see them in this type of reading.

My questions:

What is the way that famous mathematicians like Fields medalists take for reading the proofs usually?
Which way is the the best for which proofs? (For example classifying proofs and saying that the first way is good for the first class and...)

The first tag was not really appropriate, as per its excerpt. Edited some spelling.

Source Link

edited Mar 24, 2015 at 8:26

Marco Golla

10.9k
3
41
63

I am a master student in mathematics. For me a large part of doing mathematics is thinking about, reading and verifying the proof of theorem that I find them in my filedfield of study. I can do this action in 3 ways:

When I see a theorem I get a paper and think to prove it: this action takes time a lot and maybe I couldn't prove it after thinking for a lot of time.
Finding the proof of the theorem in a book or in the internet and begin reading ,going going step by step with proof ,understanding and verifying all steps: this action may takes time a lot and maybe it is not necessary that I read all steps and it's better that that I jump from not important steps (but how I can find that a step is not important?).
Finding the proof of the theorem and just read it like reading a newspaper for finding the sketch of the proof: this action is good because of it'sits speed but maybe there be some important details in the proof that we couldn't see them in this type of reading.

My questions:

What is the Wayway that famous mathematicians like fields medalistFields medalists take it for reading the proofs usually?
Which way is the the best for Whichwhich proofs? (forFor example classifying proofs and saying that the first way is good for the first class and ... )

I am a master student in mathematics. For me a large part of doing mathematics is thinking about, reading and verifying the proof of theorem that I find them in my filed of study. I can do this action in 3 ways:

When I see a theorem I get a paper and think to prove it: this action takes time a lot and maybe I couldn't prove it after thinking for a lot of time.
Finding the proof of the theorem in a book or in the internet and begin reading ,going step by step with proof ,understanding and verifying all steps: this action may takes time a lot and maybe it is not necessary that I read all steps and it's better that that I jump from not important steps (but how I can find that a step is not important?).
Finding the proof of the theorem and just read it like reading a newspaper for finding the sketch of the proof: this action is good because of it's speed but maybe there be some important details in the proof that we couldn't see them in this type of reading.

My questions:

What is the Way that famous mathematicians like fields medalist take it for reading the proofs usually?
Which way is the the best for Which proofs? (for example classifying proofs and saying that the first way is good for the first class and ... )

I am a master student in mathematics. For me a large part of doing mathematics is thinking about, reading and verifying the proof of theorem that I find them in my field of study. I can do this action in 3 ways:

When I see a theorem I get a paper and think to prove it: this action takes time a lot and maybe I couldn't prove it after thinking for a lot of time.
Finding the proof of the theorem in a book or in the internet and begin reading, going step by step with proof,understanding and verifying all steps: this action may takes time a lot and maybe it is not necessary that I read all steps and it's better that that I jump from not important steps (but how I can find that a step is not important?).
Finding the proof of the theorem and just read it like reading a newspaper for finding the sketch of the proof: this action is good because of its speed but maybe there be some important details in the proof that we couldn't see them in this type of reading.

My questions:

What is the way that famous mathematicians like Fields medalists take for reading the proofs usually?
Which way is the the best for which proofs? (For example classifying proofs and saying that the first way is good for the first class and...)