>Take into to proofs course >Supposed to be "higher mathematics" >Just high school algebra with semantic autism So when exactly am I supposed to get filtered?
at your first non-toy proof that you need to make yourself
>>16915954>Take intro to mathematics course>Supposed to be a mindbending fundamental field to rule them all>It's just counting from 1 to 10So when exactly am I supposed to get filtered?
Aren't proofs just like plug and play? Vibe proofing?How hard can it be to say 1 = singular object?
just ask the ai to prove it for you
>>16916014You are a retarded brainrotten AI addict.
>>1691595811
Serious universities don't teach separate proofs course, you learn it on the wayYou probably go to some no-name retard school that spoon feeds everything
>>16915954Can you prove there is no rational number p such that p^2=3? Can you prove that if |x-2|<1/5 then |x^2-4|<1? What are you doing here instead of looking for things to prove?
>>16916094Been a while since I've done fun little proofs like these. Well, the first one was fun. The second was really just pushing numbers though.Let $p^2=3$.By way of contradiction, assume $p\in\mathbb Q$ with $p=\frac mn$ such that $m,n\in\mathbb Z$. Then, $\frac{m^2}{n^2}=3\implies m^2=3n^2$. Note that 3 divides $m^2$, and thus $m$ too. If we re-express $m$ as $3k$, then we see $(3k)^2=3n^2\implies 3k^2=n^2$. By the same reasoning, this implies $n$ is a multiple of 3. Thus, $\frac mn$ was not fully reduced, and $p\not\in\mathbb Q$.Let $|x-2|<\frac15$, with $x\in\mathbb R$. Then, $-\frac15<x-2<\frac15\implies\frac95<x<\frac{11}{5}$. Taking the supremum of $x$, $\frac{11}{5}$, we see that $(\frac{11}{5})^2-4=\frac{21}{25}<1$. Taking the infimum of $x$, $\frac95$, we see that $(\frac95)^2-4=-\frac{19}{25}>-1$. Note that $x>0$, and therefore $x^2$ is monotone increasing. Thus, $|x-2|<\frac15\implies|x^2-4|<1$.
Even the local trade schools have proof based math courses where I live. Proofs don't filter anyone except hyper retards.
>>16915954>taking proofs obtained via set theory seriously and considering them meaningful in any wayI feel sorry for you.
"intro to proofs" is not an actual subject that you study, it's just extra scaffolding so normie retards like you can understand actual baby tier math
>>16915954>overconfident "gifted kid" makes excuses to give up and never mature because undergrad introductory courses are "too easy"yawn. No wonder you're a shartytard. Come back in 3-5 more years when you actually progressed to a point where you learned something worthwhile, or quit and play the unemployable "misunderstood genius".
all of you fags on this thread are probably in your generals right now and will go into actuarial sci. larping on 4chan is for dilators. larping about "no-name" schools is for dilators. larping about courses is for dilators.
>>16915954>introthere's your answer