i'm completing my undergraduate diploma and one aspect i've noticed is how little weight has been placed upon the potential to examine proofs, in basically all of my math guides. In first year calculus you are shown the proofs for matters like the limit of sin(x)/x at 0, but in my experience there's no incentive to be able to apprehend them. This pattern persisted even in more advanced undergraduate publications on foundations and real analysis. As one instance, the professor spent a whole lecture proving the schroeder-bernstein theorem, and only a few students made an effort to recognize it (they surely were not influenced to do so thru grades). typically speaking, my classes have followed a format in which the professor will show theorems for a giant portion of the lecture time but assessments are designed with packages and proof-writing in mind and truely maximum proofs carried out by using the professor are far too hard for a pupil to recreate independently, so there is no incentive to research the details of the greater complex proofs.This seems unusual to me, thinking about the format of most guides requires you to apprehend the arguments backing up a specific proposition. is that this genuine of maximum university applications? need to a extra emphasis be positioned upon studying how to read complex proofs?

Question

i&#039;m completing my undergraduate diploma and one aspect i&#039;ve noticed is how little weight has been placed upon the potential to examine proofs, in basically all of my math guides. In first year calculus you are shown the proofs for matters like the limit of sin(x)/x at 0, but in my experience there&#039;s no incentive to be able to apprehend them. This pattern persisted even in more advanced undergraduate publications on foundations and real analysis. As one instance, the professor spent a whole lecture proving the schroeder-bernstein theorem, and only a few students made an effort to recognize it (they surely were not influenced to do so thru grades). typically speaking, my classes have followed a format in which the professor will show theorems for a giant portion of the lecture time but assessments are designed with packages and proof-writing in mind and truely maximum proofs carried out by using the professor are far too hard for a pupil to recreate independently, so there is no incentive to research the details of the greater complex proofs.This seems unusual to me, thinking about the format of most guides requires you to apprehend the arguments backing up a specific proposition. is that this genuine of maximum university applications? need to a extra emphasis be positioned upon studying how to read complex proofs?

trivialaxxf · Accepted Answer

When I was doing my undergrad your experience is the same as mine, so I guess things are kind of similar in undergrad programs. The motivated student can understand and do the proofs of his/her own but the exams are designed to only know whether the student understood the material covered in the class and whether (s)he could apply them for a given problem.That being said, in my transition to grad studies I have noticed a significant difference. Here more emphasis is given on proving theorems. Sometimes they even give a theorem that is not covered in the class to prove in the exam. Most of the time the proofs that we have to carry out in exams aren&#039;t so difficult compared to what is done in lectures, but yet I feel it quite tiresome and difficult with regard to the very little experience I have had in proving theorems in my undergrad days.

Answered question

Answer & Explanation

New Questions in High school statistics