(Prove it)

>theorems don't even appear in the main text and are introduced only in exercises section

>go to exercise 2.2.1
>Use induction...

Nightmares from high school English just popped up.

>(Proof is obvious, think about it)

Why are you on the science board if you don't want to prove it.

When I want to spend my time doing trivial, yet possibly wordy or long proofs, I can block out the proof and do it. I paid money for this fucking book and I don't expect to be given an arbitrary challenge while i'm trying to learn.

>Prove it
>but with my method, you SHOULD NOT THINK

Shit like this makes me sick

>(How?)
>Trivial
>Obvious
>Check
>It is easy to see
>Calculate
>(unrelated.Lemma)
>[Famous mathematician with half a dozen theorems named after him]'s theorem
>Just use [Theorem in an unrelated field that has no obvious connection to the subject at hand]
>[Entirely unrelated statement which is true but has absolutely no relation to the proof]

>Theorem: for any point p in the plane this applies
>Proof: take p=0

>for simplicity, we only prove the case n=1
>proof of this statement goes beyond the scope of this text

>[Famous mathematician with half a dozen theorems named after him]'s theorem
Seriously fuck this.

lerning is full of challenges, how the fuck do you exectto be able to work with maths later, by memorizing everything by heart right before you write your papers?
learn to think logically and mathematically

>The reader is not required to know or understand xyz as used in this example at the moment. The details of this will be discussed in Chapter n.
Why even use shit the reader doesn't know yet in your examples? Black box "it doesn't matter bro" is cancer.

>the proof is left to the reader

>Theorem: ([enter mathematician name]'s Lemma

>exercise: use maple to find...

>Refer to notes for the given proof

>as we saw in the lectures

>(Weak)

>Proof appears in [Some other textbook by a different author that you don't own]

>When the fucking professor forgot how to finish the proof so he spends 25 minutes on the last step trying to remember what to do before giving up with a "it should be something like this. you can go back and figure it out."

I actually like mathematics textbooks when used in conjunction with the Internet to study.

Fuck math lectures. 99% of professors are absolute shit (either reading proofs verbatim from their notes in a monotone with no explanation or copying straight from the textbook, erasing every couple minutes, without saying a word, as if that fucking helps students who have already seen the fucking book). I swear most math lectures ruin higher mathematics education because textbooks that are dense with proofs are meant to be read FUCKING SLOWLY AND ABSORBED NOT SCRIBBLED ON A BOARD AND ERASED 3 MINUTES LATER.

Surely someone else here can relate to this, no? Or were you all just mathematical geniuses after abstract algebra, topology, etc....

>When you spend half the entire 2.5 hour math lectures trying to figure out what the fuck your chinese professor is trying to say and the other trying to read his handwriting
Math lectures are unnecessary and should be replaced with question-and-answer sessions about anything unclear in the textbooks.

if you're trying to get the same content from a lecture than from a book you're doing it wrong
the lecture is where you get the correct pictures, intuition and techniques down. you ask "big picture" and "mindset of the field" questions, and you try to see it through your prof's (hopefully trained) eyes.
for details and tool building nothing beats the textbook obviously

>takes longer than 3 minutes to read something
Brainlet.

>proof: inside the scope of your brain

That's wonderful. It's hard to do when your russian professor just reads the textbook verbatim and copies down each proof without any classroom interaction and then erases it 3 minutes later.

I WISH lectures were more like what you described and allowed for "big picture" questions and development.

I graduated with my undergrad in mathematics but took as many graduate mathematics courses as I could from my sophomore year onwards. I now love reading mathematics textbooks and learning more but never fucking want to sit through a math lecture again.

shame honestly. a couple of good hour-long lectures can speed up reading a new book immensely

I just had shitty professors then, who like I said above could spend 25 minutes trying to remember the end to a proof, forget about it, and then go back to just copying his notes directly onto the board for 2 and a half hour lectures.

I used to feel guilty and nervous if I didn't go to lectures but then sitting through every one all I could think while trying to take notes is "why the fuck am I here watching this? I could be reading the book in the hallway and learn more than this."

fuck this bullshit. i should not be punished for not going to class

some professors need a gentle push to lecture well. help them out, sometimes all it takes is an interesting question for them to cut the monotone shit and speak about what they actually know. they're prof. for a reason after all.

if they're stuck in a proof by all means, help them get unstuck. I don't know how the participation culture is for students wherever you are, but actively engaging in whatever the prof is doing helps them and everyone else

>On an exam
>Prove X using the Y methods we used in class
And sometimes if you got that far because Y methods were in the book and lecture
>Now prove X using the Z method
>Z method was only in lecture

We tried, I think, and most of us couldn't figure it out either. I actually just told a professor once that I can't understand him...and I was really trying to but his accent and mispronunciation was just that bad.

That's because your thread was about torture, sicko.

>Proof: Think.

>(If you don't understand this you are fucking stupid).

>lecturer told me I'm an idiot when i asked a question during office hours

>Exercise 3.1.4 [Minimum IQ requirement: 165].

>proves it trivially
heh, nothin' personal prof

>Exercise: (recommended only for math olympiad students)

>Proof: Its trivial for anyone with an IQ over 50, if you don't get it then stop reading this book, you have no chance.

Oh no I have to actually explain my thought process!

>I don't know what a library is

>This should be easy if the student has understood what has come before.

Fuck you Jon Barwise.

>if you do not see beauty in this theorem, you might as well be watching mindless TV right now

>tfw they pretty much say they couldn't be arsed to prove it

lol... shut the fuck up.

>this is almost identical to [earlier proof]
b-but I don't see how

maybe its giving you a little preview of whats to come

>[Famous mathematician with half a dozen theorems named after him]'s theorem
Is there anyone other than Euler that this applies to?

you studying situation theory too?

Cauchy

One day Shizuo Kakutani was teaching a class at Yale. He wrote down a lemma on the blackboard and announced that the proof was obvious. One student timidly raised his hand and said that it wasn't obvious to him. Could Kakutani explain?

After several moments' thought, Kakutani realized that he could not himself prove the lemma. He apologized, and said that he would report back at their next class meeting.

After class, Kakutani, went straight to his office. He labored for quite a time and found that he could not prove the pesky lemma. He skipped lunch and went to the library to track down the lemma. After much work, he finally found the original paper. The lemma was stated clearly and succinctly. For the proof, the author had written, 'Exercise for the reader.'

The author of this 1941 paper was Kakutani.

Left for the grader as an exercise.

>as proven in the lecture
>i didn't visit it
>there are no recordings

>go to study session
>it's the Chinese ta who probably cheated on his toefle.
Is there any greater hell?
Oh, also
>old ass professor who shoves his research into a class that has virtually nothing to do with it.

>professor constantly reiterates he doesn't "believe" the math he's teaching

one of my biggest annoyances in life is how American universities hire professors that can't speak coherent English. It's absolutely baffling

Yeah but those professors publish and bring in grant money or get patents for the university. University admins are like corporate HR: they don't give a shit about you, only the company's/university's survival.

What year are u living in ?

>This is the mitochondria

>you can think of it as being the powerhouse of the cell

>the mathematical tools to solve this problem don't exist yet

>but maybe the next generation of Americans will be able to develop applicable solutions!

>perhaps even... somebody sitting in this room!

Good luck functioning in modern academia if you need to use the library.

This is one of the stupidest things I've ever read.

Not an argument.

>Prove me wrong!

Academics frequently need to consult books. Libraries have books.

Source: am a grad student, not a smug shitposter

>academia

lol... this is just sad.

Why would I waste a bunch of time going to get a wad of paper and flipping through it when I can just download and ctrl+f?

He must be a literature major

No I'm working through Admissible Sets and Structures.

Because reading ebooks is annoying and I'd rather have the book in front of me.

>Exercise 1: Take any book on homological algebra, and prove all the theorems without looking at the proofs given in that book.

>it was proven in 2012 though
>regardless of the veracity of the interpretation I did prove that the mechanism exists in 2012
>two numbers that add to 137 don't need to be proven that they do so, it is self evident
>it does not need to be proven that 8pi^3/pi^2=8pi, it is self evident

Because looking at screens too much gives me asthenopia. physical copies are much more pleasant to look at.

>Exercise 1.2: read Euclid's Elements, Book 1.

>it does not need to be proven that 8pi^3/pi^2=8pi, it is self evident
it actually is

>(recall sections 8.7.1, 2.3.3, and 5.4.3)

Seek psychiatric help immediately.

I had this exact Problem with Lebesgue.

based lang

>The rest of the proof is left to the reader.

>definitions used in later chapters were introduced only in exercises

>we

>Trivial

>an easy induction on

>Proof: straightforward from lemma 15 and 28.

>Exercise 1 (open problem)

>without loss of generality, assume

Excersize 5.5
>Using eq. 2.35 we get...
>Thm 1.42 explains...

Yes, Lang has the best exercises