Proof Symbols Used in Math

Sdílet
Vložit
  • čas přidán 25. 06. 2024
  • Hello there! Have you ever seen crazy symbols while reading math proofs? First of all, I guess not a lot of people just read math proofs for fun. Anyways, today's video is all about the most commonly used proof symbols in mathematics. Writing proofs and reading proofs can be a bit difficult because it's very "up to the author's discretion" on what steps they want to include. Some people like to spell out each and every step while others like to write proofs that skip some more intuitive steps. In this video, I will talk about the different symbols and what they mean. I then go over a "translation" of a sentence written with the proof symbols.
    Remember the other video I did previously on the squareroot of 2 being irrational via Proof by Contradiction. I go over that same proof but this time I write it with the math proof symbols. Some people like more english words while some people like more symbols. There's a bit of freedom when writing proofs but it can make it hard to understand and follow when there are only symbols. If you haven't seen my previous video, you can check it out here! • Proof by Contradiction...
    Another set of symbols that you will see are certain letters that look bolded with double lines. These guys are apparently called blackboard bold, I guess that's the name of the font. These letters represent different number sets. I made a video a while back on these number sets so watch it here for a refresher! • Number Sets - Counting...
    Sections in this video:
    0:00 Introduction to Proof Symbols Used in Math
    2:08 Meaning of the Proof Symbols
    7:21 Translation of a Sentence that uses Proof Symbols
    12:53 Squareroot of 2 is irrational (Proof by Contradiction)
    19:28 Outro - Recap and Support the channel
    Thanks for watching! Please drop a like and subscribe to my channel. Don’t forget to let me know if you have any questions in the comments below.
    For more math videos like this, be sure to subscribe to my channel / @cavemanchangalgebrate...
    Hope you enjoyed my video! Thanks for watching!
    Credits:
    Custom Titles: Simple Video Making
    Link: czcams.com/channels/OsP.html...

Komentáře • 91

  • @ExplosiveBrohoof
    @ExplosiveBrohoof Před 6 měsíci +15

    As a mathematician, I have a couple of remarks.
    I've never seen the single line arrow --> used to denote implication. In every paper I've seen, double arrows are exclusively used for that shorthand. Single line arrows are instead reserved for functional notation, like "f: A --> B" to denote "f is a function from A to B," or for limiting behavior, like "f(x) --> 0 as x--> 0."
    I'm surprised that you didn't mention the subset symbol. We use that all the time.
    When we use \in in our written proofs, we always symbolically define the set on the right hand side. So we wouldn't use "Even #," but rather, say, 2Z.
    We also don't use symbols as often as a first-year proofs class would have you believe. I'm much more likely to say "For every" instead of the \forall symbol, and "There is a unique" instead of "\exists !". These symbols are used more commonly on blackboards and in lectures, to get the idea out more quickly.
    I will use the implication symbol ==> sometimes, but I use it as a replacement for the word "implies." And when I do this, it's usually in an effort to state the implication without explicitly committing to the hypothesis. I might say something like, "P ==> Q, which trivially implies what we want, so we may assume that P is false." I also only do this when P and Q are already symbolically heavy statements, e.g., "x \in Z ==> x^2 \in Z."
    Contradiction symbols aren't really present in papers, but on blackboards, I've taken to writing ==>

  • @BedrockBlocker
    @BedrockBlocker Před 6 měsíci +37

    Note that some of these symbols are precisely defined mathematical objects (like the Implication), but other symbols (such that, therefore) are semantical values that exist to make the proof readable for a human, but they are not themselves mathematical objects.

    • @greengreen110
      @greengreen110 Před 6 měsíci +1

      exactly
      as a romanian i couldn't for the life of me figure out what s.t. meant before he actually said what it means
      in romania this same notation is called a.î. meaning "astfel încât" which translates to "such that"

    • @Sir_Isaac_Newton_
      @Sir_Isaac_Newton_ Před 6 měsíci

      ​@@greengreen110 dude nobody cares about your country

  • @CjqNslXUcM
    @CjqNslXUcM Před 6 měsíci +19

    they look so much more complicated than they really are

  • @youtubeuserdan4017
    @youtubeuserdan4017 Před rokem +11

    "Abnormally simple" I love that phrase.

  • @afj810
    @afj810 Před 6 měsíci +23

    The two symbols for implies are similar hut have sifferent meanings. One on the left is "proven to imply" the other is "claimed to imply".

    • @tibetatakan
      @tibetatakan Před 6 měsíci +4

      also you use the left one for statements and use the right one for formulas

    • @jhanschoo
      @jhanschoo Před 6 měsíci +1

      There's really not enough established convention to distinguish between these two senses. You will need to clarify with the author. As with Xracess, I know of a context (in the Isabelle/HOL proof assistant system) where => is used at in the context of theorems implying other theorems, and -> is used as a binary operation in logical formulae.

    • @airl10
      @airl10 Před 6 měsíci +1

      Both "⇒" and "→" are used for implies in logic. Although the first one is more common, there usually is not a distinction between the two.

  • @jamestanny849
    @jamestanny849 Před 6 měsíci +2

    Thank you for this video, I found it really helpful and enjoyed it!

  • @ChuiKing
    @ChuiKing Před 6 měsíci +3

    fact: .'. is therefore
    and '.' is because

  • @manuelgonzales2570
    @manuelgonzales2570 Před 10 měsíci +4

    Excellent video. Thank you!

  • @ki8416
    @ki8416 Před 2 lety +48

    I've seen the contradiction symbol written as two arrows touching point-to-point (like this: -->

    • @CavemanChangAlgebraTeacher
      @CavemanChangAlgebraTeacher  Před 2 lety +10

      Thanks @ki for sharing! I have seen the two arrows touching point-to-point before but not the diagonal hashtag symbol. I'll include this on a future video coming out next week on the topic of Proof by Contrapositive.

  • @williamrockwell9001
    @williamrockwell9001 Před 6 měsíci +3

    ST can also mean Subject To. It pops up in optimization problems. For instance maximize some function subject to the sum of the independent variables equals X.

  • @CODE7X
    @CODE7X Před 7 měsíci

    I NEEDED THIS VIDEO SO MUCH

  • @darbyl3872
    @darbyl3872 Před 6 měsíci +5

    Upside-down T means this is a contradiction, and regular T means something like "this is a true / logical statement".
    I like the upside-down triangle of dots, which mean "because".

    • @pedroivog.s.6870
      @pedroivog.s.6870 Před 6 měsíci

      I've also seen contradiction by ->

    • @ExplosiveBrohoof
      @ExplosiveBrohoof Před 6 měsíci

      Upside down T means "perpendicular" in my mathematical dialect.

    • @darbyl3872
      @darbyl3872 Před 6 měsíci

      @@ExplosiveBrohoof That too, in geometry.

  • @Inequalito
    @Inequalito Před rokem +1

    Very good video, thanks!

  • @nnaammuuss
    @nnaammuuss Před 6 měsíci +3

    @17:12 some people use

  • @nyx8017
    @nyx8017 Před 6 měsíci +4

    Amazingly clear. Thank you so much!

  • @-Milo
    @-Milo Před rokem +1

    This is an amazing video

  • @pedroivog.s.6870
    @pedroivog.s.6870 Před 6 měsíci +3

    One symbol my Math teacher loves using is : before =.
    := stands for "is defined as"
    Say, for example, the definition of a function f
    f : |R* -> |R
    x |-> y := f(x) := (x²+1)/x
    Or, to be more succinct
    f : |R* -> |R
    x |-> y := (x²+1)/x
    Or
    f : |R* -> |R
    x |-> (x²+1)/x

    • @pauld9690
      @pauld9690 Před 6 měsíci

      Huh, I've been using it to mean 'is reassigned to' for iterative stuff. I suppose I really should just be subscripting.

    • @airl10
      @airl10 Před 6 měsíci

      ​​@@pauld9690 "≔" is commonly used for assignment in algorithmic contexts, so its fine to use it that way

  • @landsgevaer
    @landsgevaer Před 6 měsíci +3

    Missed "QED", or square symbol.

  • @youtuber1650
    @youtuber1650 Před 6 měsíci +2

    I prefer the colon : for s.t.

  • @trex4561
    @trex4561 Před rokem +1

    sir respect from J&K

  • @7s1gma
    @7s1gma Před rokem

    Great video.

  • @cynthiagondwe1495
    @cynthiagondwe1495 Před 4 měsíci

    Thank you so much

  • @SankalpaSatyal
    @SankalpaSatyal Před 6 měsíci +2

    By the way sometimes ':' is used for such that.

  • @MeekoBeeko
    @MeekoBeeko Před rokem

    really good video, love u

  • @_Falco_peregrin_
    @_Falco_peregrin_ Před 6 měsíci

    Ur very good .. U helped me ur awesome

  • @haithamalbadi2192
    @haithamalbadi2192 Před rokem +2

    hello teacher
    i really love math
    but i feel its hard
    so i want to learn from zero
    do you have the first lesson of math?

  • @liamwelsh5565
    @liamwelsh5565 Před 6 měsíci

    Another common one is iff. which stands for "if and only if". iff. and bidirection implication () are logically equal.

  • @zapazap
    @zapazap Před rokem +4

    0:20 often in math "symbols are used to do some operations"
    So too in truth functional logic sirm Even in the predicate calculus, the implication arrow means to do a calculation (unless they are in strings transformed by rewrite rules.)
    And that arrow does not tightly cohere with the english 'implies'.

    • @josephthomas4900
      @josephthomas4900 Před 9 měsíci

      Whilst the meaning is different to that of the word 'implies' in regular english, i believe A⇒B is spoken as A implies B, and ⇒ is referred to as the 'implies sign', even if it doesn't really mean 'implies' in the usual sense.

    • @zapazap
      @zapazap Před 9 měsíci

      @@josephthomas4900 Indeed. I believe logicians call ot "material implication". It means simply "(not A) or B".
      Which is not to say other logics are impossible. But this is standard.

  • @evank3718
    @evank3718 Před 6 měsíci +1

    Therefore? But there are only three

  • @ernestbeckley
    @ernestbeckley Před 6 měsíci

    I was under the impression that the double-headed arrow meant "if and only if".

    • @ExplosiveBrohoof
      @ExplosiveBrohoof Před 5 měsíci

      It does. "If and only if" means the same thing as "implies both ways."

  • @allenhonaker4107
    @allenhonaker4107 Před 6 měsíci +1

    Has anyone ever written a comprehensive dictionary or encyclopedia of mathematical symbols.

    • @user-fe2ho6wk6j
      @user-fe2ho6wk6j Před 6 měsíci +2

      The closest thing to this is the book "Principia Mathematica"

  • @brickmotion6637
    @brickmotion6637 Před 7 měsíci +2

    ↯ Is the symbol I've seen used for contradiction most of the time.

  • @NginaGithaiga-is1nd
    @NginaGithaiga-is1nd Před rokem

    0:26 GG

  • @ag_editz447
    @ag_editz447 Před rokem

    He'll I am student from India

  • @xenonmob
    @xenonmob Před 6 měsíci

    symbols plural

  • @rv706
    @rv706 Před 6 měsíci +2

    Pretty much nobody uses the "three dot triangle" symbol. I have a phd in math, and I've never ever seen anyone use that symbol.

    • @scragar
      @scragar Před 6 měsíci

      It's usage tends to be pretty specific, it's often the sort of thing where you'll prove a lemma, then have the logic after it where you can reference already showing the lemma(or cite it from elsewhere) therefore step where we use the lemma without going through the intermediary steps.
      So it's very much a "step 1, step 2, invoke lemma therefore step 6, step 7, step 8" style progress. For the most part it's not nice, it's better to actually use the steps from the lemma/invoked proof if it's not well known rather than citing it, but it does get used.

    • @darbyl3872
      @darbyl3872 Před 6 měsíci +3

      My junior high algebra teacher used it, so I keep it handy for my own notes.

    • @ManiacalPenguin_
      @ManiacalPenguin_ Před 6 měsíci +4

      I've seen it a shit ton, maybe one of our experiences are just skewed

    • @jeremymarsh9199
      @jeremymarsh9199 Před 6 měsíci +2

      very common in engineering

  • @user-friendly9101
    @user-friendly9101 Před měsícem

    f(x)!?!?!?

  • @GemstoneActual
    @GemstoneActual Před 6 měsíci

    There existS a word which means what you're trying to say.
    "There, exist.", is a command, of sorts, but, "There exist symbols", is nonsense, because "exist" is a verb, with no subject, but "exists" is a quality, kinda like a preposition.
    I am not a professional English teacher.

  • @user-xw6ky8ob4l
    @user-xw6ky8ob4l Před 9 měsíci

    What is the point of standing in front of written mathematical narrative and explaining it to baffled learners? Use overhead projector or long pointer to explain away finer points of ready solutions.

  • @O46185O
    @O46185O Před 6 měsíci

    💚 Super nerd! 😅💚

  • @emjizone
    @emjizone Před 6 měsíci +2

    You are confusing symbols that clearly don't have the same exact meaning. Beware of the *types* .

  • @xyz.ijk.
    @xyz.ijk. Před 6 měsíci

    This was super important and really well done -- except for your self-deprecation, which was not funny and a total waste of time. You're a teacher! Get on with it!

  • @Able89535
    @Able89535 Před 6 měsíci

    This is the proof that mathematicians are lazy af😂

    • @Able89535
      @Able89535 Před 6 měsíci +1

      And don’t take me wrong, being lazy while keeping the work effective (in this case communication) is great and it is the core principle that drives us to a better world

  • @user-friendly9101
    @user-friendly9101 Před měsícem

    ✓°→√Ω¶{×÷}[]≤≥⟩⟨%±-·ⁿ⅒

  • @dienosorpo
    @dienosorpo Před 6 měsíci

    Why not just write words. I don like when people overcomplicate with maths for no reason at all.
    Like mfs who "prove 1 + 1 = 2"

    • @TheBasikShow
      @TheBasikShow Před 6 měsíci +2

      He touched on this in the video, but there are two main reasons:
      First, it’s much quicker to write. It might be hard to appreciate this if you’re someone who doesn’t write proofs often, but having to say “for any real numbers a and b there exists a third real number c” over and over again is super annoying and cumbersome compared to “∀ a, b ∈ ℝ ∃ c ∈ ℝ”. Again, writing it out once is reasonable, but if you need to say the same thing three times in a proof, and do five or so proofs in a homework assignment, you very quickly come to appreciate how these symbols shorten things.
      The second reason is that unlike English words, these symbols correspond directly to logical concepts. My favorite example of this is the word “is”, which is used in English to mean equality (the king of Camelot is Arthur Pendragon) but also sometimes to mean element inclusion (Arthur Pendragon is a king) and also sometimes to mean set inclusion (a king is a monarch). Mathematical notation lets you distinguish between these: (Arthur Pendragon) = (king of Camelot) is the first statement, (Arthur Pendragon) ∈ King is the second statement, and King ⊆ Monarch is the third statement. Different meanings get different symbols so there is no possibility for confusion.

  • @yash1152
    @yash1152 Před rokem +73

    graphic thumbnail, graphic logo; but video on a physical board - no thanks.

    • @zapazap
      @zapazap Před rokem +233

      Would you like your money back?

    • @youtubeuserdan4017
      @youtubeuserdan4017 Před rokem +125

      What's wrong with that?

    • @landsgevaer
      @landsgevaer Před 6 měsíci +109

      Don't forget to wash your hands on the way out. Bye.

    • @ari-man
      @ari-man Před 6 měsíci +7

      Fr was a bit disapointed

    • @TheDarkSide11891
      @TheDarkSide11891 Před 6 měsíci +29

      I know right man! I mean like, every other thumbnail on this website is a FLAWLESS representation of the video that they're on!

  • @cliffordmorris6091
    @cliffordmorris6091 Před 6 měsíci

    You talk too much , you flap your hands you could take off. You should have prepared your talk so your words are minimal . A boring explanation of set theory notation with some silly comments thrown in for good measure. Sorry to be brutal but if you are going to make videos you need to be clear and not tell the audience they know when clearly it is your role to tell them. You decided to be the teacher.

  • @kafrikotroll8610
    @kafrikotroll8610 Před rokem

    Thanks 👍👍👍

  • @jeffreylin235
    @jeffreylin235 Před 6 měsíci

    p and q are co-prime. I would express it as "GCF(p, q) = 1"

  • @RazorM97
    @RazorM97 Před rokem +1

    ⊥⊥⊥ could also represent a contradiction