Not necessarily. I've had exam questions where the lecturer intentionally asked us to prove incorrect statements, and to get the marks, we need to realise that it was not provable and say why
"Prove or disprove 2 of the following 3 statements." (One is provable in half a page, one disprovable with a small counterexample, and the remaining one is equivalent to the Riemann Hypothesis.)
*calculus seperate vector reader flashback* (our calculus course uses a terrible reader made by a professor to teach vector stuff, but it doesn't tell you how anything works, it just gives you a few examples for common exercise types and then exercises to practice)
Rafcio Pranks as per Desmos it appears to be irrational. You could use Newton’s method to approximate this value though if you can differentiate x^x (not too hard, just has a novel first step)
@@rafciopranks3570 you can solve it using the lambert W function, and get an exact answer. In fact you can develop an exact answer for all expressions of the type a^x + bx = c, where a and b are either constant or x's, and c is a constant. Edit: c *and* a actually have to be constants, cannot be x. So actually x^x=x+x specifically is not possible to get with the Lambert W. But there has to be at least one more value besides 2 for which it holds, you will have to find it numerically :)
i just did that for the "you can sum any two primes to form any even integer" problem and it's kind of weird how there's no even integers missing until 1832
I tend to prefer the "the proof for this is quite lengthy, so you'll just have to trust me on this" and "the proof is left as an exercise to the student".
I was reading my Chemistry textbook and there was a rather funny part where they described the process for synthesizing I think Aluminum electrochemically. It was basically "if you set up a system like this, unknown reactions will result in Aluminum collecting at the bottom, which we can siphon off to use industrially." Or in layman's terms "then a miracle occurs"
The "proof by picture" triggered me because at uni we had to solve some really basic algebra problems and I did all the working out and showed concise proof, the professor accepted a hand-drawn graph as a justification of other students' answers.
It was probably a good exercise though. Reminds me a bit when we wrote a report after a project. Two friends wrote like 20 pages, sitting up to early morning the last night. Me and another friend wrote 4... All of us passed.
You forgot the most common ones: -- The proof is trivial. -- The proof is perfectly analogous to the previous one (except it is not, LOL). -- The proof is left for the careful student to exercise. Edit: suck(0).
How come has no one made the timestamp? 0:18 Direct Proof 1:03 Proof by Contradiction 1:54 Proof by Approximation 2:29 Proof by Intimidation 3:57 Proof by Voting 4:49 Proof by Example 5:31 Proof by Intuition 5:59 Proof by Higher Authority 6:46 Proof by Resignation 7:00 Proof by Picture 7:48 Proof by Mutual Reference 9:09 Proof by Accumulated Evidence
1. Small comment. The rest is followed by InDuCtIoN. 2. Paper sets out to prove theorem in 200 pages. The actual proof is somewhere on page 69 and the rest is proving theorems related or even unrelated to the proof. 3. This proof is trivial, so it can be assigned as classwork. Don't be confused if it keeps getting referenced throughout the course. 4. Is that an s or a 5? Is that a c or a C, v or V, p or P, k or K...? 5. What is this used for and why are we doing this? 6. If unsure about the proof, reference these gucci antique monolith stones that predate the modern era. 7. The notation is different in this paper than every other paper in history. 8. [Famous mathematician] said it, so why question it? 9. Circular argument... -> contradiction!
Ah yes the margin of 2048 orders of magnitude Once I was calculating when two neutrons that are on the opposite edges of the observable universe collide, I accidentally slipped in the mass of the milky way and instead of the gravitational constant I used the inverse of planck time, also as radius I decided to use your dads pp length (which is pretty small even if I say so myself). I was happy that my answer was within the accepted margin, barely but still
I also know some: 1. In my classes, proof by intimidation is done differently: -Andrew: “I didn’t quite get why this proves our theorem...” -Prof: “If you didn’t even understand that, you’re probably in the wrong course!” 2. Proof by axiom: “This property seems so nice, let’s consider it as a prerequisite to doing maths.” 3. indirect proof without contradiction: assume a statement is true and conclude that it must be true. 4. My favourite one: => ◾️.
Finian Blackett I know. I've studied them. The only serious argument that does this, though, is the ontological argument, but I find that argument to be so flawed it does not deserve the name "argument".
@@angelmendez-rivera351 It is possible for me to have the perfect bank account with enough money to be the richest person on earth, and not break the economy. If the bank account didn't exist, it would not be perfect which by definition it must be. Therefore the bank account exists.
Marvelous Quasar Pork Man DAMN, U right. I've been defeated. I will now submit to our Lord and Savior the Perfect Bank Account. Wait, how do I even offer sacrifices to this bank account lol
My favorite proof that I saw in a math book “The proof by induction over n is quite straightforward, but also quite tedious and thus omitted, an illustration for case n = 3 is given in the figure below.”
one of my teachers at the university: “[...] and so this is the axiom we are going to work with. Now let’s prove the axiom first.” And he proved the axiom...
yea well, the subject he was teaching was also boring and completely useless (some kind of formalized programming theory, but had nothing to do with maths or programming). He also didn’t provide any supporting material. Some of the students took photos of his slides so we could at least prepare for the exam somehow... I was of course sleeping 😄 On the exam I had the formulae printed on a cheat sheet in ASCII, so I had no idea what they meant and how to write them down to begin with 🤣 I still passed tho, probably because deep down he felt that he was teaching BS to us and my ‘ASCII art’ reflected on that.
We have e^(Pi * i) = -1 Squaring both sides gives e^(2 * Pi * i) = 1 Simplify i*i e^(-2 * P) = 1 Take the natural log of both sides -2 * P = 0 Therefore P = 0 So for all N, we have P = NP QED
In graph theory, there were proofs by picture, one of which was also a proof by finger pointing. It make sense since graph theory is so visual and hard to represent abstractly/generally. A common frustration with a graph theory student trying to prove something (myself included) is "... but I can't draw it!" It can really mess with your brain.
Last time I checked, Alan Turing himself disproved that P=0 in his essay referencing the Entscheidungsproblem, since it is trivial that the time it takes for Andrew to become a genius is Polynomial.
Papa I think you got your proof by contradiction wrong. The negation of "you momma fat & geh" is "you momma not fat OR not geh". That's just basic logic mate, smh
I have evidence the earf iz flat: for small values of y=sqrt(1-x^2) is equal to y=1 a flat noncurved line, check mate atheists. circle = line (proof by desmos graphs). QED
HolyMith bizarrely man, your comment doesn’t belong here math.stackexchange.com/questions/1642225/proving-the-existence-of-a-proof-without-actually-giving-a-proof
Actually the right statement was proven that some true statements (in a consistent system of axioms, for example arithmetic) cannot be proven. I refer to Gödel's incompleteness theorems
Another important technique is the 'proof by spy' where you access last year's (or another student's) solution where they say that the statement holds.
Did you just dare to say my harmonic series converges exactly on the day I had my analysis 2 final? Nvm we all deeply know that the epsilon equal or less than zero was worst and probably some kids died just because of that
For the statement being proved at 1:02 , the negation of "Your momma is fat and gay" would be "Your momma is not fat or not gay", which would then divulge into cases, both being trivial as it's obvious that that both cases are false.
i really like the theorem at 6:57. It is very straight forward if you understand numbers. It is also a good mental exercise for someone who has never thought of something like it.
If one exchanges all epsilons and deltas in Calculus book (deltas instead of epsilons and vice-versa), all the definitions and proofs would still be correct, but most of mathematicians would have VERY HARD time trying to read it :)
one of my favourite profs taught mathematical physics - his approach was to outline his proof on the blackboard before turning to the class & nodding his head very quickly! PS proof by higher authority made me think of the reimann hypothesis xD
Proof by apathy: It’s probably true, therefore it’s true. Boom. Suddenly you prove: The Riemann Hypothesis, Goldbach Conjecture, and whatever you want- all in one stroke!
Proof by large, strangely shaped commuting diagrams, and proof by example if the example is sufficiently general (usually after a small lecture on how proof by example doesn't work, but it will suffice in this case).
I usually use the proof by beauty. It has worked for phycisists and philosophers before, why not math? Bonus: You can disprove the Riemann-conjecture by simple use of Murphys law. The proof is left as an exercise for the student.
You missed:" that is homwork and you can proof it by yourself and it is so easy and we have no time for this" every Student:"Yeah sure we have no Hobbys except math"
On a number theory exam, I once proved that the number of partitions of n into odd parts was the same as the number of partitions of n into distinct parts by drawing Ferrers diagrams. I didn't get full credit, but I got most of it. So there's an example of proof by pictures (somewhat, I did have to write some shit).
Proof without help of the lecturer: "If you don't know how to prove this, you can come to me after the lecture, and I will help you to withdraw your documents from this university". Happened on calculus 2 in my uni, lol.
This riddle was popular at MIT many years ago. Q. How do you tell a mathematician from a physicist from an engineer? A. Ask them to prove that all odd numbers are prime. The mathematician says “1 is prime, 3 is prime, 5 is prime, 7 is prime, and the rest follows by induction.” The physicist says, “1, 3, 5, and 7 are prime, 9 is experimental error, 11 and 13 are prime, and the rest follows by induction.” The engineer says, “1 is prime, 3 is prime, 5 is prime, 7 is prime, 9 is prime, and the rest follows by induction.” Probably less amusing for engineers.
I'm not even joking I asked why matrix multiplication is associative but the teacher he just yelled at me to see the examples and try them and prove this. In my mind I was screaming, "oops am I in the science class"
I've never had a good time making proofs, because i've never need them (I study systems engineering), but now a teacher leave me as homework to prove 9 (simple) vectorial analisis problems, things like "prove that these vectors coincide at some point" and things like that.... buts i just CAN'T make it!... And suddenly, this video apears and shows me that not even mathematicians are always good at proofs.
Yeah these proofs by intuition definetly screwed me over... There's a reason why something is called just differientiable and not always continuously differientiable
Proof by Complication: Theorem: 1+1=2 Proof: ln(sqrt(lim n-> infinity (1+2/n)^n)) + sin^2(x) +cos^2(x) = integral from t=0 to pi: sin(t)dt Note that lim n-> infinity (1+2/n)^n = e^2. So ln(sqrt(e^2)) = 1. sin^2(x) + cos^2(x) = 1 And the integral from 0 to pi of sin(t)dt = 2 Therefore 1+1=2, q.e.d.
The only type of proof that is better than mutual reference is non-mutual reference, when you find a paper that uses the same lemma and says it's evident, but once you refer there it's not your problem anymore :D
When i first watched this I was so cringed, and thought this wasn't funny at all... Here I am, 2 weeks after starting to do proofs. Shit this is hilariously genious!
3:30, Proof By Intimidation: Starts with Implicit Function Theorem, and fills the board with conditional probability and ends with complex numbers. Huge success. ROFLMAO!
![Proofs in University Maths be like... 2 [ Math Joke Video ] [ Best of invalid proof techniques ]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Y9bKXDdxtFk/mqdefault.jpg)
![Proofs in University Maths be like... 2 [ Math Joke Video ] [ Best of invalid proof techniques ]](/img/tr.png)
Proof by necessity: Since the statement is on the exam and it asks us to prove it’s true then it must be true.
OMFG 😂
In an exam we were asked to prove that a statement is true, while it was clearly false. Turns out the guy who made the exam made a mistake LOL
Not necessarily. I've had exam questions where the lecturer intentionally asked us to prove incorrect statements, and to get the marks, we need to realise that it was not provable and say why
"Prove or disprove 2 of the following 3 statements."
(One is provable in half a page, one disprovable with a small counterexample, and the remaining one is equivalent to the Riemann Hypothesis.)
LOL
You forgot everyone's favorite: Proof by leaving it as an exercise to the reader. (Usually solved by "well I guess it must be true then".)
*calculus seperate vector reader flashback*
(our calculus course uses a terrible reader made by a professor to teach vector stuff, but it doesn't tell you how anything works, it just gives you a few examples for common exercise types and then exercises to practice)
Spivak Calculus Bruh.
Are proffs are trivial and is homework for students
Paid 69 bucks for a book on data base theory. Half the proofs are left to the reader. I mean yo what am I paying you for :(
Give this man an award
@@patternwhisperer4048 only good justification for that price is the fact that it's 69
2+2=4
2*2=4
2^2=4
Therefore x+x=x*x=x^x
Proof by example 😇
You forgot tetration. 2 tetrated 2 =4
Now we've got serious problem
What's the secound answer for x^x=x+x
Rafcio Pranks as per Desmos it appears to be irrational. You could use Newton’s method to approximate this value though if you can differentiate x^x (not too hard, just has a novel first step)
@@rafciopranks3570 you can solve it using the lambert W function, and get an exact answer. In fact you can develop an exact answer for all expressions of the type a^x + bx = c, where a and b are
either constant or x's, and c is a constant.
Edit: c *and* a actually have to be constants, cannot be x. So actually x^x=x+x specifically is not possible to get with the Lambert W. But there has to be at least one more value besides 2 for which it holds, you will have to find it numerically :)
I tried to use a Labert W fuction but it didn't help. Also Wolfram Alpha couldn't give me an exact answer. Is it possible though?
“Why don’t they just write a python script and check a lot of numbers”
~ every scientist ever
Lol I did that for my homework
@@panc4kes276 same lol
I did it with java when i did not know calculus to get formula for electric potential from electric force.
i just did that for the "you can sum any two primes to form any even integer" problem and it's kind of weird how there's no even integers missing until 1832
@@__jan then you made a mistake or you are a legend who just disproved the goldbach conjecture
Integration by prayer
😂
What's that? You guess at random and pray it works?
😝😝😝😝
@@Funkaar_Studio u have the same name as me
@@retardedkangaroo8665 really??
You totally missed proof by axiomatization, if you can't prove it then it should be an axiom
@@PapaFlammy69 sequel video?
lol
Godel has entered the chat
Totally hahaha
I CANT
Proof by engineering: if it's close enough, it's proven.
Why be right when you can just approximate?
Not for German speaking engineers 😅
please define close enough 😅
@@kosmasfostinis8017 😂😅
@@hpsmash77 it doesn't break, good enough.
I can't help but feel like some of these were referencing me but I can't put my finger on it.
I guess your assumption then can't be proven by intuition tho, bruh
Love the contents of you two!
Greetings from a swiss nanophysics student :D
"Hey mr Dotson", "Yes Andrew?"
😂😂😂
No he was talking about Mr Andrew Nostod and Dr Werdna Dotson
"epsilon less than or equal to zero"
I truly am intimidated.
They took epsilon so small that epsilon^2 was negative. With that epsilon they proved the Riemann hypothesis.
@@u.v.s.5583 Wait how?
@@sals4659 They even made a documentary movie about it, called The Proof.
@@u.v.s.5583 I'll check it out, thanks!
Top Information Channel:
VICE.
Just sayin'!
wtf he solved the p=np
And the Reimann Hypothesis too.
*wait, thats illegal*
someone call Clay Mathematics Institute they owe this man a million dollars
@@Pi-bz1dn shutup Andrew we are done here!
@@rafaelplugge3214 proof of intimidation:
Proof by "I couldn't fit the proof in the margin of my book so just trust me dude"
@ Fermat
That's how Fermat presented his last theorem, right?
Christian Albert Jahns yep
The reader may easily persuade himself that...
I tend to prefer the "the proof for this is quite lengthy, so you'll just have to trust me on this" and "the proof is left as an exercise to the student".
I was reading my Chemistry textbook and there was a rather funny part where they described the process for synthesizing I think Aluminum electrochemically. It was basically "if you set up a system like this, unknown reactions will result in Aluminum collecting at the bottom, which we can siphon off to use industrially."
Or in layman's terms "then a miracle occurs"
I mean thats kinda how physics explains being able to look through glass even though there is no real coherent structure to the crystal
Can you tell me the textbook please I kind of want to show that to a friend of mine
@jameson1239
Unfortunately I forget the name of the textbook, as it's been several years
@@ryanalving3785 fair
The "proof by picture" triggered me because at uni we had to solve some really basic algebra problems and I did all the working out and showed concise proof, the professor accepted a hand-drawn graph as a justification of other students' answers.
I mean its still valid
It was probably a good exercise though.
Reminds me a bit when we wrote a report after a project. Two friends wrote like 20 pages, sitting up to early morning the last night. Me and another friend wrote 4... All of us passed.
You forgot the most common ones:
-- The proof is trivial.
-- The proof is perfectly analogous to the previous one (except it is not, LOL).
-- The proof is left for the careful student to exercise.
Edit: suck(0).
Or "The author of this notes does not have a proof on the statement yet"
@@ivanlazaro7444 Is that method called proof by honesty?
@@ivanlazaro7444 "The author does not have enough space here to write the proof, but it's not difficult"... does it sound familiar? 😂😂😂
Those 3 give me nightmares
Another good one is proof by inaccessible literature
I like how Andrew is every character
Dotson
Proof by intuition is what i always use, really powerfull.
I prefer proof by intimidation... After all, nothing dares defy me when I take off my shoes after a hard days work...
Flammable Maths I use proof by God
How come has no one made the timestamp?
0:18 Direct Proof
1:03 Proof by Contradiction
1:54 Proof by Approximation
2:29 Proof by Intimidation
3:57 Proof by Voting
4:49 Proof by Example
5:31 Proof by Intuition
5:59 Proof by Higher Authority
6:46 Proof by Resignation
7:00 Proof by Picture
7:48 Proof by Mutual Reference
9:09 Proof by Accumulated Evidence
10:13 Proof by Water
11:00 Proof by Proof
@Wompa Stompa nice name
@@wompastompa3692 Womp Womp
my high school math teacher proved that lim sinx/x is 1 when x->0 by plotting the graph with computer.
Seems like a reasonable guy
1. Small comment. The rest is followed by InDuCtIoN.
2. Paper sets out to prove theorem in 200 pages. The actual proof is somewhere on page 69 and the rest is proving theorems related or even unrelated to the proof.
3. This proof is trivial, so it can be assigned as classwork. Don't be confused if it keeps getting referenced throughout the course.
4. Is that an s or a 5? Is that a c or a C, v or V, p or P, k or K...?
5. What is this used for and why are we doing this?
6. If unsure about the proof, reference these gucci antique monolith stones that predate the modern era.
7. The notation is different in this paper than every other paper in history.
8. [Famous mathematician] said it, so why question it?
9. Circular argument... -> contradiction!
Engineering proof:
Are we in 20 percent margin?
Then its true lul.
Ne kadar kırıcı bir davranış
Bahadır Öztürk ne diyon olm sjkdkdldjd
Ah yes the margin of 2048 orders of magnitude
Once I was calculating when two neutrons that are on the opposite edges of the observable universe collide, I accidentally slipped in the mass of the milky way and instead of the gravitational constant I used the inverse of planck time, also as radius I decided to use your dads pp length (which is pretty small even if I say so myself). I was happy that my answer was within the accepted margin, barely but still
"Prove the value of pi to five decimals."
Proof by calculator: It says 3.1415926536, so I just round to get 3.14159. QED.
You forgot "Proof by 'this proof is outside the scope of this paper'" :^)
Underrated
I also know some:
1. In my classes, proof by intimidation is done differently:
-Andrew: “I didn’t quite get why this proves our theorem...”
-Prof: “If you didn’t even understand that, you’re probably in the wrong course!”
2. Proof by axiom: “This property seems so nice, let’s consider it as a prerequisite to doing maths.”
3. indirect proof without contradiction: assume a statement is true and conclude that it must be true.
4. My favourite one: => ◾️.
"indirect proof by contradiction" *It's possible that this conjecture is true. Therefore, it must be true. Therefore, it is true. Q.E.D.*
Finian Blackett I know. I've studied them. The only serious argument that does this, though, is the ontological argument, but I find that argument to be so flawed it does not deserve the name "argument".
@@angelmendez-rivera351 It is possible for me to have the perfect bank account with enough money to be the richest person on earth, and not break the economy.
If the bank account didn't exist, it would not be perfect which by definition it must be.
Therefore the bank account exists.
Marvelous Quasar Pork Man DAMN, U right. I've been defeated. I will now submit to our Lord and Savior the Perfect Bank Account.
Wait, how do I even offer sacrifices to this bank account lol
Proof by looking and seeing.
My favorite proof that I saw in a math book “The proof by induction over n is quite straightforward, but also quite tedious and thus omitted, an illustration for case n = 3 is given in the figure below.”
one of my teachers at the university:
“[...] and so this is the axiom we are going to work with. Now let’s prove the axiom first.” And he proved the axiom...
yea well, the subject he was teaching was also boring and completely useless (some kind of formalized programming theory, but had nothing to do with maths or programming). He also didn’t provide any supporting material. Some of the students took photos of his slides so we could at least prepare for the exam somehow...
I was of course sleeping 😄 On the exam I had the formulae printed on a cheat sheet in ASCII, so I had no idea what they meant and how to write them down to begin with 🤣 I still passed tho, probably because deep down he felt that he was teaching BS to us and my ‘ASCII art’ reflected on that.
We have
e^(Pi * i) = -1
Squaring both sides gives
e^(2 * Pi * i) = 1
Simplify i*i
e^(-2 * P) = 1
Take the natural log of both sides
-2 * P = 0
Therefore
P = 0
So for all N, we have
P = NP
QED
In graph theory, there were proofs by picture, one of which was also a proof by finger pointing. It make sense since graph theory is so visual and hard to represent abstractly/generally. A common frustration with a graph theory student trying to prove something (myself included) is "... but I can't draw it!" It can really mess with your brain.
You can claim you proved it by visualizing it in 13 dimensions in your brain, but it's too hard to draw it out.
Proof by "I don't need to know the proof I just need to be able to apply it"
That's an engineering proof
You forgot the other trivial case of P=0.
Please educate yourself on trivialites.
Last time I checked, Alan Turing himself disproved that P=0 in his essay referencing the Entscheidungsproblem, since it is trivial that the time it takes for Andrew to become a genius is Polynomial.
@@jessicawang6558 top banter
Lmao
Our genius papa flammy will win 1 million for P vs NP.
Let N = 1, therefore P = NP
Computer scientists be like “you missed the point”
Mathematicians be like “whoosh”
Don't forget P=0.
Ok. Let N=1. = 1.0000. There you have your POINT. Satisfied now?
Pinnacle of comedy
Proof by re-writing: The statement proves itself in the exam question thus re-writing the question proves the statement.
Papa I think you got your proof by contradiction wrong. The negation of "you momma fat & geh" is "you momma not fat OR not geh". That's just basic logic mate, smh
He didn't say "not fat and not gay", which would be wrong, he said "not (fat and gay)", which is indeed the negation
negation of thing is always not-thing.
Demorgan delight.
Also now I gotta delete my comment that says the same thing that I wrote before I read this one
uwu
@@SirZafiro Thanks for your input, appreciate ya
modus pornens
Riemann hypothesis - the proof is trivial.
All my professors: "hope no one notices i don't know what i'm doing"
hahahahahaha love these videos, never stop making them!
Some epsilon less than or equals to zero.
Mathemathicians: *reèeeeeeeeeeeeeeee*
IS THAT A-
HOLY MOTHAFUCKING SHIT IS THAT A-
I had a visceral reaction.
"If you add smaller and smaller parts together, for sure it's not going to infinity."
Harmonic Series: *am I a joke to you?*
"How about we make it flippy-floppy?"
"Why would that affect convergence, it makes no..."
"..."
"Yeah okay"
ln
It's funny because when you are trying to prove something on an exam you immediatly lose half of your iq points
Only big bois noticed the Wii music in the background
*T H I C C*
I hope a random student came in around 4:25 to see the big dong theorem on the board
The dong is smooth along the bruh-axis
My man walks in to see if his friend wants coffee and he’s got a piece of chalk in his hand. Math people are wild.
Proof by Exercise: Claim it is a trivial exercise and let someone else prove it.
Since the proof is trivial is left as an exercice for the teacher.
As a CS student, the "proof by accumulated evidence" called me out so hard
I have evidence the earf iz flat:
for small values of y=sqrt(1-x^2) is equal to y=1 a flat noncurved line, check mate atheists.
circle = line (proof by desmos graphs). QED
@FAT cat implying globes even exist what a noob.
you can't have gravity without spheroids and there is no proof they exist DUH ;)
Proof by existence of proof: Everything must have a proof, even if no one is smart enough to find it. QED.
HolyMith bizarrely man, your comment doesn’t belong here
math.stackexchange.com/questions/1642225/proving-the-existence-of-a-proof-without-actually-giving-a-proof
Actually the right statement was proven that some true statements (in a consistent system of axioms, for example arithmetic) cannot be proven. I refer to Gödel's incompleteness theorems
3:24 I love that the implicit funct theorem:
Starts with eps
succ(0)st
Proof by Wolfram Alpha; they say it's unsolvable, so it is!
Another important technique is the 'proof by spy' where you access last year's (or another student's) solution where they say that the statement holds.
Did you just dare to say my harmonic series converges exactly on the day I had my analysis 2 final?
Nvm we all deeply know that the epsilon equal or less than zero was worst and probably some kids died just because of that
Proof by collusion
In exam: Hey bro. How do you prove number 3?
Proof by continuously dabbing in a livestream for 30 minutes straight
FAT cat oh trust me, I am 100% sure he knows what I mean
but can you prove it?
Nxt Master
ebic bruhve:
czcams.com/video/lGwhNKv05Ss/video.html
Bruh, you don't write QED after your proofs? Bro, that's kinda cringe...
i literally shidded and farded when he didnt write QED
It's written on his shirt
The square is better :v
@@yxlxfxf I hope you cleaned up
nobody's using the perpendicular lines sign? ;(
⟂
Proof by Exhaustion
"... zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz..." und so weiter
Product (z) from n=1 to inf
(should be -inf to inf of course)
For the statement being proved at 1:02 , the negation of "Your momma is fat and gay" would be "Your momma is not fat or not gay", which would then divulge into cases, both being trivial as it's obvious that that both cases are false.
3:11 engineers be like "1 hour later"
Giovani DL proof by approximation
I'm studying engineering and I literally said in my head "that's kinda one hour later" XD
i really like the theorem at 6:57. It is very straight forward if you understand numbers. It is also a good mental exercise for someone who has never thought of something like it.
What about 16
@@mememachine3029 5 and 11, or 13 and 3.
"Jaja, mach ruhig, alles gut"
glugg glugg gluCC
If one exchanges all epsilons and deltas in Calculus book (deltas instead of epsilons and vice-versa), all the definitions and proofs would still be correct, but most of mathematicians would have VERY HARD time trying to read it :)
AllMyCircuits Holy crap that is hilarious to think about. Someone should actually do this.
P=NP
Assume N=1
LOL🤣🤣🤣
_problem solved_
(sin x)/n=six=6
6:57 every one trying to prove Goldbach conjecture with highschool math 3 in the morning
one of my favourite profs taught mathematical physics - his approach was to outline his proof on the blackboard before turning to the class & nodding his head very quickly!
PS proof by higher authority made me think of the reimann hypothesis xD
Proof by apathy: It’s probably true, therefore it’s true.
Boom. Suddenly you prove: The Riemann Hypothesis, Goldbach Conjecture, and whatever you want- all in one stroke!
Proof by large, strangely shaped commuting diagrams, and proof by example if the example is sufficiently general (usually after a small lecture on how proof by example doesn't work, but it will suffice in this case).
Proof by tautology: let's assume the statement is true, then it's true. QED.
We just covered the Implicit Function Theorem in my analysis class and I feel that part so hard now lmaoooooo
:'D
Always a pleasure to meet a fellow homestuck sucked into the joyous world of mathematics
Proof by intimidation works well when you're absolutely shredded.
Proof by
esthetic: It seems so beautiful and simple that it has to be true.
I usually use the proof by beauty.
It has worked for phycisists and philosophers before, why not math?
Bonus:
You can disprove the Riemann-conjecture by simple use of Murphys law.
The proof is left as an exercise for the student.
You missed:" that is homwork and you can proof it by yourself and it is so easy and we have no time for this" every Student:"Yeah sure we have no Hobbys except math"
8:44 how to be the first mathematician to ever prove a false theorem in their PhD thesis
You have advanced the mathematical methods by at least a thousand years
Proof by acts of divinity
"It was revealed to me in a dream"
I love these skits Papa, loved you dropping greatest the unproved problems in math and just destroying them
On a number theory exam, I once proved that the number of partitions of n into odd parts was the same as the number of partitions of n into distinct parts by drawing Ferrers diagrams. I didn't get full credit, but I got most of it. So there's an example of proof by pictures (somewhat, I did have to write some shit).
You forgot: This is so obvious and clear, I leave it up to you. Next Question!
"Why don't I make a python script and check a bunch of numbers"
so relatable hah
3:36 That was a fucking clever way of giving a shout out to andrew dostson
Proof without help of the lecturer:
"If you don't know how to prove this, you can come to me after the lecture, and I will help you to withdraw your documents from this university".
Happened on calculus 2 in my uni, lol.
This riddle was popular at MIT many years ago. Q. How do you tell a mathematician from a physicist from an engineer? A. Ask them to prove that all odd numbers are prime. The mathematician says “1 is prime, 3 is prime, 5 is prime, 7 is prime, and the rest follows by induction.” The physicist says, “1, 3, 5, and 7 are prime, 9 is experimental error, 11 and 13 are prime, and the rest follows by induction.” The engineer says, “1 is prime, 3 is prime, 5 is prime, 7 is prime, 9 is prime, and the rest follows by induction.” Probably less amusing for engineers.
2:30 you say "today's a.n.a.l. class"? I didn't see you like that papa, my whole childhood is destroyed :'(
I'm not even joking I asked why matrix multiplication is associative but the teacher he just yelled at me to see the examples and try them and prove this. In my mind I was screaming, "oops am I in the science class"
Proof by imitation: Just copy whatever a person who seems to know what theyre doing is writing
I've never had a good time making proofs, because i've never need them (I study systems engineering), but now a teacher leave me as homework to prove 9 (simple) vectorial analisis problems, things like "prove that these vectors coincide at some point" and things like that.... buts i just CAN'T make it!... And suddenly, this video apears and shows me that not even mathematicians are always good at proofs.
6:35 that's how we do here in france
The background music is from the Wii Mii creation tool right? Nostalgia...
You know, if I hadn't taken my first proofs classes this year, I would've probably thought the first one was an exaggeration
I love your videos! The way you present math is really charismatic. I look forward to learning more with you. :)
Yeah these proofs by intuition definetly screwed me over...
There's a reason why something is called just differientiable and not always continuously differientiable
7:07 Ahh the classic theorem of engineering: Sin(x)=x.
I am a physics major and even though it was physics, the math is very hardcore. One of our assignments was to proof why is
-(-1)=1....
Proof by Complication:
Theorem: 1+1=2
Proof:
ln(sqrt(lim n-> infinity (1+2/n)^n)) + sin^2(x) +cos^2(x) = integral from t=0 to pi: sin(t)dt
Note that lim n-> infinity (1+2/n)^n = e^2. So ln(sqrt(e^2)) = 1.
sin^2(x) + cos^2(x) = 1
And the integral from 0 to pi of sin(t)dt = 2
Therefore 1+1=2, q.e.d.
3:50 I actually say "Q. E. F***ING. D" every time I finish a homework proof
Lmao when he starts with epsilon greater than or equal to 0 and somehow gets to random conditional probabilities. I was truly intimidated.
Me at the start: this should be funny
Me 1 minute in: on shit he’s actually teaching useful things
@@PapaFlammy69 but my momma still phat and geh, tho
I love how professor Dotson gives the Goldbach conjencture as a small excersise.
Flammable Maths HAHAHAHAHAHA that's pretty funny
hahahhah andrew is not an element of the smart people. shots fired
The only type of proof that is better than mutual reference is non-mutual reference, when you find a paper that uses the same lemma and says it's evident, but once you refer there it's not your problem anymore :D
When i first watched this I was so cringed, and thought this wasn't funny at all...
Here I am, 2 weeks after starting to do proofs. Shit this is hilariously genious!
3:30, Proof By Intimidation: Starts with Implicit Function Theorem, and fills the board with conditional probability and ends with complex numbers. Huge success. ROFLMAO!