How do I learn proofs Sick of getting trolled and told to read

>>8345383
https://www.amazon.com/Fundamentals-Building-Construction-Materials-Interactive/dp/1118820193

>>8345400
haha fuckin epic d00d :^) \m/ upvoted

edit: thanks for the gold kind stranger!

>>8345383
>Sick of getting trolled and told to read rudin. I need something that starts with the absolute basics and builds up from there.
This book here:
https://www.amazon.com/Naive-Set-Theory-Paul-Halmos/dp/1614271313.
Yon can find it searching here:
http://bookzz.org/.
It gives you a nice foundation, but you still won't be able to study from Rudin.
You need to study on different easier mathematical analysis books before getting there.
Some proofs are only sketched and you won't be able to fill them out.
Others are too abstract for a brainlet.
Familiarize with set theory (and logic if you're willing to) first, then find a nice and rigorous linear algebra book.
Download as many books as possible and compare them.
Seriously you don't get there without a lot of patience and different textbooks if you're self studying.

>>8345475
>and logic if you're willing to
https://en.wikipedia.orghttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tautology_(logic)#Definition_and_examples
Either you use your intuition or prove them with truth tables or derivations.
Derivations are the best choice.

File: Untitled.png (162KB, 661x890px) Image search: [Google]

162KB, 661x890px

>>8345383

>>8345383
Algebraic geometry by Hartshorne. It covers high school geometry in a rigorous way and is used in a lot of intro proof courses

You memorize the steps of how to solve the proof.

https://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Advanced-Mathematics-William-Barnier/dp/0130167509

>>8345673
>algebraic geometry

xD epic trolle

That's graduate school level mathematics. I only know the basics of algebra, rings, fields, monoids, etc but have almost no proof technique.

>>8345383
Step 1: Try to prove something.
Step 2: Come up with a list of reasons why you think that something is true.
Step 3: Break down those reasons into more fundamental reasons using proofs by contradiction, mathematical induction, pigeonholing, or by simple construction.
Step 4: Check to see if your fundamental reasons are commonly used axioms (such as the shortest path between two points is a straight line, or that you can make bigger numbers by repeatedly adding 1). If this is the case, go to step 5, if not, keep breaking down your reasons, or, if you suspect that a reason isn't true, or isn't true in all cases, then try to come up with counter examples (to improve your understanding of the situation), or scrap those reasons and come up with new ones
Step 5: Check to see if your fundamental reasons successfully prove your main statement (are each of your logical steps well supported?). If they don't, go back to some previous step, if they do, congratulations! You just proved something!

>>8345383
All memes aside, do a google search for "How to Prove it". It goes over how to do proofs in a nice way to those who aren't exposed to it.

>>8345475
>and logic if you're willing to
I wouldn't say logic is optional if the goal is to properly understand proofs, and write correct proofs.

>>8345733
Could you prove me that the kernel of a group homomorphism is a normal subgroup? How do you even know that stuff but can't construct proofs?

>>8345383
Pick one or both of:

>How to Prove it by Daniel Vellemen
>Book of Proof by Richard Hammack

They both walk you through the basics of set theory, logic, and proof techniques and have tons of exercises. The first has more material and has better exercises, but it's a bit long.

Once you've gone through these books, you'll be on a firmer footing upon which you can attempt to read a real mathematics textbook (a rigorous linear algebra text is a good start). From there it's pretty much a matter of experience and building up your so-called mathematical maturity.

>>8345751
I just know what they represent

a monoid only has one operation
a ring has two

etc

very rudimentary, can't prove anything

>>8345820
Right. Well, I'll give an example to show the basic steps, assumption and deduction: the uniqueness of an identity element (that is, the element e in a monoid such that a*e=e*a=a for every a).

Suppose e and f are identity elements in a monoid. Then, by the definition of an identity element, e=e*f=f. QED

Can you understand what happened here?