Thread replies: 13
Thread images: 7
Thread images: 7
>definition requires definitions that are out of chapter
>>
File: 1499640304872.jpg (32KB, 512x512px) Image search:
[Google]
32KB, 512x512px
>>9154653
>Prof says proof of lemma is trivial
>Student asks Prof to prove it anyway
>He can't
>Prof tries to prove it all weekend
>Can't
>Prof looks up original paper on the subject
>Authored by him
>"Proof of lemma is trivial"
>Hfw
>>
File: 1500425029300.png (332KB, 808x805px) Image search:
[Google]
332KB, 808x805px
>>9154653
>theorem is presented as a definition
>>
>>9154962
>Prof says proof of lemma is trivial
>Student asks Prof to prove it anyway
>He can't
>Prof tries to prove it all weekend
>After spending a dozen hours on it, he solves it
>"Ah, it was trivial after all"
>>
File: the man who had many friends.jpg (57KB, 500x667px) Image search:
[Google]
57KB, 500x667px
>>9154653
>read physics paper
>most of their proofs are just sketch proofs
>inconsistent referencing for unproven claims
>the claims they make are often worded imprecisely
>find follow-up that now includes an author who is an actual mathematician
I see
>>
File: 1504036506728.png (1MB, 1080x1080px) Image search:
[Google]
1MB, 1080x1080px
>>9155029
>>
File: 1503636774719.jpg (32KB, 547x328px) Image search:
[Google]
32KB, 547x328px
>>9154653
>Theorem 8.1.11
>Proof: apply lemma 4.1.9 to theorem 7.6.14 using similar methods to 2.2.3 and the result follows
>>
>>9154653
>>definition requires definitions that are out of chapter
This isn't that bad with the actual book in front of you, but I know you're pirating so...
>>
>The proof of the theorem is beyond the scope of this book.
>>
>definition requires me to consult a dictionary
>>
>>
>>9155047
I fucking hate this
>>
>>9158103
Non preatermiter excursi aggressii ad /pol/.
/pol/ non reactere, causa /pol/ est impotent.
Thread posts: 13
Thread images: 7
Thread images: 7