Proof: Omitted

>Proof: Omitted.

>we'll leave the rather tedious development of this equations to the reader

>Proof: Omitted.

>Proof: Easy

>Proof: similar to [theorem 100 pages back]

>Proof: Think.

>Proofs:
[eqn]I:= [z\mapsto z]:Z\to Z[/eqn]
[eqn]B:=[x\mapsto y\mapsto z\mapsto x(y(z))]:(Y\to X)\to(Z\to Y)\to Z\to X[/eqn]
[eqn]C:=[x\mapsto y\mapsto z\mapsto x(z)(y)]:(Z\to Y\to X)\to Y\to Z\to X[/eqn]
[eqn]W:=[y\mapsto z\mapsto y(z)(z)]:(Z\to Z\to Y)\to Z\to Y[/eqn]
[eqn]K:=[z\mapsto y\mapsto z]:Z\to Y\to Z[/eqn]

>Proof: Calculate!

Proof: as exercise to reader.

>Proof: It is obvious

>Proof of theorem 100 pages back: left as an exercise.

...

>Proof: Check using Tai's method

...

...

>no answers to problems in the book
HOW THE FUCK AM I SUPPOSED TO KNOW IF I LEARNT THE MATERIAL CORRECTLY YOU FUCKING DOUCHBAGS?!

Lazy motherfucker.

Life is too short to hold the hands of brainlets.

...

Books are time irrelevant.

Somebody has to put in the time to write them.

He's paid to write a book. It's very unscientific to omit proof.

The proof is an exercise for a reason. You need to be able to figure it out if you want to learn. The book is a "textbook" and not a "reference book."

But it does look easy, user.

Yep just unpack the definitions!