Suppose

>we begin by

>(Why?)

>If this is the case, then we are done. Otherwise,

>The proof is left as an exercise for the reader.
Fuck you.

Because I like being shown how to construct things myself :3

>using the logic behind exercise 2.3 and 4.52, we can clearly see...

I feel you

>WLOG

>Relax the assumption in

>author actually means WITH loss of generality

>But then since

relatable

Onee (one and only one)

Assume bwoc (by way of contradiction)

>Proof: we skip the proof because it would require algebraic topology

>Proof: Check exercise 21
>Exercise 21: prove that...
Every goddamn time

It's worse when they betray you with that bullshit

>Proof: analogous to the proof of theorem 2.7
>Theorem 2.7, proof: Left as an exercise to the reader

lold

>Proof: Think

>obviously
>it's easy to see that

>sois

posons

stupid froggies
go back to henri IV

>well excepted law based on a theory used to define entire portion of physics
>This theory only works if theoretical X exists

>assume

>Let S represent the set of all humans on Earth

∃!

>Proceed by cases
>Too many cases

>if A equals set of all real numbers between 0...5 then A=B

wth am i allowed to write then?

why abbreviate it if you're typing it out anyway (retard)

>therefore,
>Hence,
>As a result,
>Therefore,
>Thus,
>Hence,
>Consequently,

>a priori

>notice
>observe

>such that

>The following aren't equivalent

>ideally....

This cat makes the face every computer science major makes while taking physics 2.

...

>the proof is in the pudding

>morally

>necessary but not sufficient
>it is an exercise that...
>this is the first difficult proof in the book

>Furthermore

consider

...

>Using the solution from the previous exercise

>eeks

>albeit

>ergo

>if and only if

...

> assume a massless rope in a vacuum

>by inspection

>My face: analogous to the picture in my post
>the picture in my post: left as an exercise to the reader

>assume an infinitely long copper wire

>pls don't memorize this

>hypothetically

>otf
of the form

>wrt
with respect to

>in particular,

>ethics

I feel like Ramanujan pulled a lot of these

Iff

>whence

>think

>to first order

by principle of sufficient reason

>assume an infinite plane

>ansatz

QED is just *mic drop* for nerds lol

damn...you're right.

>ansatz
>not some stuff you just made up

wew

>given

had a pretty good one of these threads a while back

>approximate

>simplify
>evaluate
>show that

>compute

>We assume the function is smooth, we don't need this hypothesis but it makes the proof easier.

>assume that

>the proof is beyond the scope of this course

>note

>By induction

>by construction

>by contradiction

>by deduction

>judge

> hint: Think!

Maugre

>ift
It follows that

>conversely