>"the explanation is left as an exercise for the reader..."

>>8741840
Thing with math is that if you find the result wanted it's fair to assume you're right.

File: 1485888174746.jpg (74KB, 882x768px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 882x768px

>>8741845
Nope. For example, if an exercise asks for a proof, you can offer a proof that is not valid/rigorous but claims the same thing as was supposed to be claimed.

>no worked examples
>no solutions
>"proof is left to the reader"
>exam is nothing like the assignments/problem sets
>class average is <40%
>mind_slowly_drifting_to_the_abyss.ogg

>>8742269
Be rigorous yourself then. Check for cases you didn't check, formalise your writing, and so on.

Also most informal proofs are perfectly valid, they just need more formalism.

>>8742269
That is why you have to scrutinize your own proof. After you are done writing you are supposed to read it again and see how all statements connect. If you do it carefully enough you can always notice gaps.

Though I know what you mean and to double check I sometimes post my proofs on the SQT and ask if someone else can find a flaw.

It is funny because some hours ago I was going to do that again but as I just as I was finishing Tex-ing my proof I realized how obviously correct it was and then decided to just not post it at all.