Curso de geometría métrica, Volume 1. Front Cover. Pedro Puig Adam. Nuevas Graficas, QR code for Curso de geometría métrica. Curso de geometría métrica, Volume 1. Front Cover. Pedro Puig Adam. Patronato de Publicaciones de la Escuela Especial de Ingenieros Industriales, Curso de Geometria metrica. Tomo I-Fundamentos, Tomo II-Complementos. P. Puig Adam. Published by Biblioteca matematica, Price: US$

Author: | Kakora Niramar |

Country: | Barbados |

Language: | English (Spanish) |

Genre: | Personal Growth |

Published (Last): | 28 November 2012 |

Pages: | 385 |

PDF File Size: | 9.10 Mb |

ePub File Size: | 14.91 Mb |

ISBN: | 191-5-16924-116-6 |

Downloads: | 35820 |

Price: | Free* [*Free Regsitration Required] |

Uploader: | Daibar |

Reasonings, explanations and from time to time, theorems as conclussions. Nevertheless, I think that this style has more cons than pros. By using our site, you acknowledge that you have read and understand gemoetria Cookie PolicyPrivacy Policyand our Terms of Service.

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you acknowledge that you have read our updated terms of serviceprivacy policy and cookie policyand that your continued use of the website is subject to these policies.

### Pedro Puig Adam | LibraryThing

I’m writing up my solutions to a rather large set of number theory problems, and was wondering the following. Should one always place the proof of a theorem after its statement? Some people place it before.

Actually, I know a book that is is written in the way you have described. For this reason I’ve been writing in normal prose, describing my thinking, and arriving every now and then at a main lemma or theorem.

I’ve found that doing so leads to clumsy repetition often using the same variables in a slightly different order of the reasoning that lead me to the theorem – because I know proofs should work forwards from your assumptions, whereas my reasoning often works backwards from the result to work out how to get there.

For example, a reader that is just looking for a proof of a gievn theorem, will prefer the Theorem – Proof style. Sign up using Email and Password. I am aware that it is good practice to include formal proofs but if the proof is implied in my explanation leading up to the theorem, is it still necessary to include it formally?

## Pedro Puig Adam

Post Your Answer Discard By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you acknowledge that you have read our updated terms of serviceprivacy policy and cookie policyand that your geomegria use of the website is subject to these policies.

My question is, is it always necessary to then include a formal proof of gometria theorem after its statement, if I’ve already explained how I got there? Mathematics Stack Exchange works best with JavaScript enabled.

I’m certainly used to writing formal, ‘structured’ mathematics solutions, but in these problems I’ve frequently found I want to split my answers into several lemmas that together lead to a main theorem. Email Required, but never shown.

This has prompted me to start using formal ‘lemma, theorem, proof’ formatting which I’ve never done before. Post as a guest Name. It is a Spanish book: Home Questions Tags Users Unanswered. Sign up or log in Sign up using Google.

However, the markers want to see ‘how I arrived at’ my mettica as they are mainly interested in my thought process. Sign up using Facebook.