>I have seen other mathematicians use this terminology in lecture notes as well.
I actually copied my entire proof style from books I've read.
When I write proofs for mysel for even in tests I usually use phrases like "we can show", "we can prove", etc. Is that normal? I mean, for an author that makes sense because he is talking to me.
Do you think it sounds dumb if I say "we"? Should I say "I can show"? Does that sound pretentious? How would you say it?
I remember when it was acceptable to assign variables in BASIC using the word LET.
>20 LET A$ = "BASIC IS FUCKING GAY"
no, i do this too.
just say you do mathematics on behalf of humanity and you believe that theorems in their aesthetics one-ness are above the individual egos of an author or something cool like that
Axiom 1.
All OPs are fags
Axiom 2.
A square faggot is a hero (see: Spongebob)
Proposition 1.
OP should an hero.
Let A=OP.
Let there be contrived a similar figure B so that A:B :: OP : An hero
Let it be contrived so that the greatest side of figure B applied to the greatest side of figure A produces two sides of a right triangle where C is the side of another, larger, similar figure and the hypotenuse.
I say that OP should an hero.
For if [eqn]A^2 + B^2 = C^2[/eqn], then
OP squared plus An hero squared equals C squared. OP is a fag.
A square faggot is a hero.
A hero : side of An hero squared :: A squared : B squared
let n be the mean proportional between A and B. Therefore A *B = n squared
Therefore
A hero * side of An hero squared = [eqn]n^4[/eqn]
Therefore
A hero/n* side of A hero squared = n^3
The side of A hero squared being defined as A hero (above)
Therefore
2 A hero/n =n^3
or
A hero = 2n^4
Therefore
OP = [eqn]sqrt(2)n^2[/eqn]
And OP times an hero equals n
Can someone complete this proof for me?
Cut out the first line of the prop, it renders the whole attempt meaningless
You forgot the lesbian shitposters
Axiom 1 should also contain the shitposters
all theories are at max hypothesis which have been adopted widely.
You don't need to 'let' accepted axioms, user
Assume -p&p. Woah that leads to a contradiction, I can eliminate the introduction of implication and conclude -(p&-p)!
>heuses letters in a mathematical""proof""
KEK Ithought mathematicians were supposed to use pure math, not just use the alphabet.
Sad!