Proofs Gone Wrong: A Lecture On Mathematical Writing
description
Transcript of Proofs Gone Wrong: A Lecture On Mathematical Writing
![Page 1: Proofs Gone Wrong: A Lecture On Mathematical Writing](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062315/56815193550346895dbfcada/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Proofs Gone Wrong:Proofs Gone Wrong:
A Lecture OnA Lecture OnMathematical WritingMathematical Writing
CSC373, Winter 2007
![Page 2: Proofs Gone Wrong: A Lecture On Mathematical Writing](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062315/56815193550346895dbfcada/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
Why care about writing?
• Right Idea, bad proof: gets a 50• Your proof is a method of persuading the reader
that something is true. • Errors in logic love to hide behind bad writing.
![Page 3: Proofs Gone Wrong: A Lecture On Mathematical Writing](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062315/56815193550346895dbfcada/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
Toy Problem
• Prove the Full Binary Tree Theorem:
The number of leaves in a non-empty full binary tree is one more than the number of internal nodes.
![Page 4: Proofs Gone Wrong: A Lecture On Mathematical Writing](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062315/56815193550346895dbfcada/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
Right Idea, bad proof Let T be a full binary tree. If a leaf of T is taken away, then it will have
n-1 nodes. But it will not be a full-binary tree, so we need to remove leaves x and y. Now T has n -1 internal nodes and n leaves. We did not touch any internal nodes, but one of them transformed into a leaf. So it has one less of them.
We have also destroyed two leaves, but we made a new one instead, so the total decreased by one. By the induction hypothesis, the new T has one more leaf than the number of internal nodes. Since the number of internal nodes in T decreased by one and the number of leaves decreased by one as well, it can be interpolated that the original T also had one more leaf than internal nodes.
![Page 5: Proofs Gone Wrong: A Lecture On Mathematical Writing](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062315/56815193550346895dbfcada/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
Who are WE???
• “The reader and I embark on a journey of proving things.”
![Page 6: Proofs Gone Wrong: A Lecture On Mathematical Writing](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062315/56815193550346895dbfcada/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
Where did this come from? Let T be a full binary tree. If a leaf of T is taken away, then it will have
n-1 nodes. But it will not be a full-binary tree, so we need to remove leaves x and y. Now T has n-1 internal nodes and n leaves. We did not touch any internal nodes, but one of them transformed into a leaf. So it has one less of them.
We have also destroyed two leaves, but we made a new one instead, so the total decreased by one. By the induction hypothesis, the new T has one more leaf than the number of internal nodes. Since the number of internal nodes in T decreased by one and the number of leaves decreased by one as well, it can be interpolated that the original T also had one more leaf than internal nodes.
![Page 7: Proofs Gone Wrong: A Lecture On Mathematical Writing](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062315/56815193550346895dbfcada/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
Define all terms/variablesLet T be a full binary tree with n internal nodes. If a leaf of T is taken
away, then it will have one less node. But it will not be a full-binary tree, so we need to remove leaves x and y. Now T has n-1 internal nodes and n leaves. We did not touch any internal nodes, but one of them transformed into a leaf. So it has one less of them.
We have also destroyed two leaves, but we made a new one instead, so the total decreased by one. By the induction hypothesis, the new T has one more leaf than the number of internal nodes. Since the number of internal nodes in T decreased by one and the number of leaves decreased by one as well, it can be interpolated that the original T also had one more leaf than internal nodes.
![Page 8: Proofs Gone Wrong: A Lecture On Mathematical Writing](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062315/56815193550346895dbfcada/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
What in the world are you trying to do?
Let T be a full binary tree with n internal nodes. If a leaf of T is taken away, then it will have one less node. But it will not be a full-binary tree, so we need to remove leaves x and y. Now T has n-1 internal nodes and n leaves. We did not touch any internal nodes, but one of them transformed into a leaf. So it has one less of them.
We have also destroyed two leaves, but we made a new one instead, so the total decreased by one. By the induction hypothesis, the new T has one more leaf than the number of internal nodes. Since the number of internal nodes in T decreased by one and the number of leaves decreased by one as well, it can be interpolated that the original T also had one more leaf than internal nodes.
![Page 9: Proofs Gone Wrong: A Lecture On Mathematical Writing](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062315/56815193550346895dbfcada/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
Always make it clear what you are trying to do.
The proof is by induction on the number of internal nodes in the tree. The induction hypothesis (IH) is that a non-empty full binary tree with n-1 internal nodes has n leaves.
Let T be a full binary tree with n internal nodes. If a leaf of T is taken away, then it will have one less node. But it will not be a full-binary tree, so we need to remove leaves x and y. Now T has n-1 internal nodes and n leaves. We did not touch any internal nodes, but one of them transformed into a leaf. So it has one less of them.
We have also destroyed two leaves, but we made a new one instead, so the total decreased by one. By the induction hypothesis, the new T has one more leaf than the number of internal nodes. Since the number of internal nodes in T decreased by one and the number of leaves decreased by one as well, it can be interpolated that the original T also had one more leaf than internal nodes.
![Page 10: Proofs Gone Wrong: A Lecture On Mathematical Writing](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062315/56815193550346895dbfcada/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
What is this pronoun?The proof is by induction on the number of internal nodes in the tree.
The induction hypothesis (IH) is that a non-empty full binary tree with n-1 internal nodes has n leaves.
Let T be a full binary tree with n internal nodes. If a leaf of T is taken away, then it will have one less node. But it will not be a full-binary tree, so we need to remove leaves x and y. Now T has n-1 internal nodes and n leaves. We did not touch any internal nodes, but one of them transformed into a leaf. So it has one less of them.
We have also destroyed two leaves, but we made a new one instead, so the total decreased by one. By the induction hypothesis, the new T has one more leaf than the number of internal nodes. Since the number of internal nodes in T decreased by one and the number of leaves decreased by one as well, it can be interpolated that the original T also had one more leaf than internal nodes.
![Page 11: Proofs Gone Wrong: A Lecture On Mathematical Writing](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062315/56815193550346895dbfcada/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
Logical errors love to hide behind ambiguous pronouns
The proof is by induction on the number of internal nodes in the tree. The induction hypothesis (IH) is that a non-empty full binary tree with n-1 internal nodes has n leaves.
Let T be a full binary tree with n internal nodes. If a leaf of T is taken away, then T will have one less node. But T will not be a full-binary tree, so we need to remove leaves x and y. Now T has n-1 internal nodes and n leaves. We did not touch any internal nodes, but one of them transformed into a leaf. So T has one less internal node.
We have also destroyed two leaves, but we made a new one instead, so the total decreased by one. By the induction hypothesis, the new T has one more leaf than the number of internal nodes. Since the number of internal nodes in T decreased by one and the number of leaves decreased by one as well, it can be interpolated that the original T also had one more leaf than internal nodes.
![Page 12: Proofs Gone Wrong: A Lecture On Mathematical Writing](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062315/56815193550346895dbfcada/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
Are you talking to yourself?The proof is by induction on the number of internal nodes in the tree.
The induction hypothesis (IH) is that a non-empty full binary tree with n-1 internal nodes has n leaves.
Let T be a full binary tree with n internal nodes. If a leaf of T is taken away, then it will have one less node. But it will not be a full-binary tree, so we need to remove leaves x and y. Now T has n-1 internal nodes and n leaves. We did not touch any internal nodes, but one of them transformed into a leaf. So T has one less internal node.
We have also destroyed two leaves, but we made a new one instead, so the total decreased by one. By the induction hypothesis, the new T has one more leaf than the number of internal nodes. Since the number of internal nodes in T decreased by one and the number of leaves decreased by one as well, it can be interpolated that the original T also had one more leaf than internal nodes.
![Page 13: Proofs Gone Wrong: A Lecture On Mathematical Writing](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062315/56815193550346895dbfcada/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
Remove everything that is not necessary for the proof to work.
The proof is by induction on the number of internal nodes in the tree. The induction hypothesis (IH) is that a non-empty full binary tree with n-1 internal nodes has n leaves.
Let T be a full binary tree with n internal nodes. We need to take away leaves x and y from T. Now T has n-1 internal nodes and n leaves. We did not touch any internal nodes, but one of them transformed into a leaf. So T has one less internal node.
We have also destroyed two leaves, but we made a new one instead, so the total decreased by one. By the induction hypothesis, the new T has one more leaf than the number of internal nodes. Since the number of internal nodes in T decreased by one and the number of leaves decreased by one as well, it can be interpolated that the original T also had one more leaf than internal nodes.
![Page 14: Proofs Gone Wrong: A Lecture On Mathematical Writing](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062315/56815193550346895dbfcada/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
Put away the thesaurusThe proof is by induction on the number of internal nodes in the tree.
The induction hypothesis (IH) is that a non-empty full binary tree with n-1 internal nodes has n leaves.
Let T be a full binary tree with n internal nodes. We need to take away leaves x and y from T. Now T has n-1 internal nodes and n leaves. We did not touch any internal nodes, but one of them transformed into a leaf. So T has one less internal node.
We have also destroyed two leaves, but we made a new one instead, so the total decreased by one. By the induction hypothesis, the new T has one more leaf than the number of internal nodes. Since the number of internal nodes in T decreased by one and the number of leaves decreased by one as well, it can be interpolated that the original T also had one more leaf than internal nodes.
![Page 15: Proofs Gone Wrong: A Lecture On Mathematical Writing](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062315/56815193550346895dbfcada/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
Keep the Vocab SimpleThe proof is by induction on the number of internal nodes in the tree.
The induction hypothesis (IH) is that a non-empty full binary tree with n-1 internal nodes has n leaves.
Let T be a full binary tree with n internal nodes. We need to remove leaves x and y from T. Now T has n-1 internal nodes and n leaves. We did not remove any internal nodes, but one of them changed into a leaf. So T has one less internal node.
We have also removed two leaves, but we made a new one instead, so the total decreased by one. By the induction hypothesis, the new T has one more leaf than the number of internal nodes. Since the number of internal nodes in T decreased by one and the number of leaves decreased by one as well, it can be concluded that the original T also had one more leaf than internal nodes.
![Page 16: Proofs Gone Wrong: A Lecture On Mathematical Writing](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062315/56815193550346895dbfcada/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
Who did what now?The proof is by induction on the number of internal nodes in the tree.
The induction hypothesis (IH) is that a non-empty full binary tree with n-1 internal nodes has n leaves.
Let T be a full binary tree with n internal nodes. We need to remove leaves x and y from T. Now T has n-1 internal nodes and n leaves. We did not remove any internal nodes, but one of them changed into a leaf. So T has one less internal node.
We have also removed two leaves, but we made a new one instead, so the total decreased by one. By the induction hypothesis, the new T has one more leaf than the number of internal nodes. Since the number of internal nodes in T decreased by one and the number of leaves decreased by one as well, it can be concluded that the original T also had one more leaf than internal nodes.
![Page 17: Proofs Gone Wrong: A Lecture On Mathematical Writing](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062315/56815193550346895dbfcada/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
Avoid Passive VoiceThe proof is by induction on the number of internal nodes in the tree.
The induction hypothesis (IH) is that a non-empty full binary tree with n-1 internal nodes has n leaves.
Let T be a full binary tree with n internal nodes. We need to remove leaves x and y from T. Now T has n-1 internal nodes and n leaves. We did not remove any internal nodes, but we changed one into a leaf. So T has one less internal node.
We have also removed two leaves, but we made a new one instead, so the total decreased by one. By the induction hypothesis, the new T has one more leaf than the number of internal nodes. Since the number of internal nodes in T decreased by one and the number of leaves decreased by one as well, we can conclude that the original T also had one more leaf than internal nodes.
![Page 18: Proofs Gone Wrong: A Lecture On Mathematical Writing](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062315/56815193550346895dbfcada/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
Avoid uncertain language.The proof is by induction on the number of internal nodes in the tree.
The induction hypothesis (IH) is that a non-empty full binary tree with n-1 internal nodes has n leaves.
Let T be a full binary tree with n internal nodes. We need to remove leaves x and y from T. Now T has n-1 internal nodes and n leaves. We did not remove any internal nodes, but we changed one into a leaf. So T has one less internal node.
We have also removed two leaves, but we made a new one instead, so the total decreased by one. By the induction hypothesis, the new T has one more leaf than the number of internal nodes. Since the number of internal nodes in T decreased by one and the number of leaves decreased by one as well, we conclude that the original T also had one more leaf than internal nodes.
![Page 19: Proofs Gone Wrong: A Lecture On Mathematical Writing](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062315/56815193550346895dbfcada/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
Logical mistakes always hide behind vagueness
The proof is by induction on the number of internal nodes in the tree. The induction hypothesis (IH) is that a non-empty full binary tree with n-1 internal nodes has n leaves.
Let T be a full binary tree with n internal nodes. We need to remove leaves x and y from T. Now T has n-1 internal nodes and n leaves. We did not remove any internal nodes, but we changed one into a leaf. So T has one less internal node.
We have also removed two leaves, but we made a new one instead, so the total decreased by one. By the induction hypothesis, the new T has one more leaf than the number of internal nodes. Since the number of internal nodes in T decreased by one and the number of leaves decreased by one as well, we conclude that the original T also had one more leaf than internal nodes.
![Page 20: Proofs Gone Wrong: A Lecture On Mathematical Writing](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062315/56815193550346895dbfcada/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
Don’t be vague. If its on purpose, make it explicit
The proof is by induction on the number of internal nodes in the tree. The induction hypothesis (IH) is that a non-empty full binary tree with n-1 internal nodes has n leaves.
Let T be an arbitrary full binary tree with n internal nodes. Let I be an arbitrary internal node whose children are both leaves. We need to remove I’s children from T. Now T has n-1 internal nodes and n leaves. We did not remove any internal nodes, but we changed one into a leaf. So T has one less internal node.
We have also removed two leaves, but we made a new one instead, so the total decreased by one. By the induction hypothesis, the new T has one more leaf than the number of internal nodes. Since the number of internal nodes in T decreased by one and the number of leaves decreased by one as well, we conclude that the original T also had one more leaf than internal nodes.
![Page 21: Proofs Gone Wrong: A Lecture On Mathematical Writing](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062315/56815193550346895dbfcada/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
This is not programming!The proof is by induction on the number of internal nodes in the tree.
The induction hypothesis (IH) is that a non-empty full binary tree with n-1 internal nodes has n leaves.
Let T be an arbitrary full binary tree with n internal nodes. Let I be an arbitrary internal node whose children are both leaves. We need to remove I’s children from T. Now T has n-1 internal nodes and n leaves. We did not remove any internal nodes, but we changed one into a leaf. So T has one less internal node.
We have also removed two leaves, but we made a new one instead, so the total decreased by one. By the induction hypothesis, the new T has one more leaf than the number of internal nodes. Since the number of internal nodes in T decreased by one and the number of leaves decreased by one as well, we conclude that the original T also had one more leaf than internal nodes.
![Page 22: Proofs Gone Wrong: A Lecture On Mathematical Writing](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062315/56815193550346895dbfcada/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
You can’t redefine variablesThe proof is by induction on the number of internal nodes in the tree.
The induction hypothesis (IH) is that a non-empty full binary tree with n-1 internal nodes has n leaves.
Let T be an arbitrary full binary tree with n internal nodes. Let I be an arbitrary internal node whose children are both leaves. Let T’ be the tree obtained by removing I’s children from T. T’ has n-1 internal nodes and n leaves. We did not remove any internal nodes, but the node I becomes a leaf in T’. So T’ has one less internal node than T.
We have also removed two leaves, but we made a new one instead, so T’ has one less leaf than T. By the induction hypothesis, T’ has n leaves. Since the number of internal nodes in T’ is one less than in T and the number of leaves is also one less than in T, we conclude that the T also had one more leaf than internal nodes.
![Page 23: Proofs Gone Wrong: A Lecture On Mathematical Writing](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062315/56815193550346895dbfcada/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
How do you know that?The proof is by induction on the number of internal nodes in the tree.
The induction hypothesis (IH) is that a non-empty full binary tree with n-1 internal nodes has n leaves.
Let T be an arbitrary full binary tree with n internal nodes. Let I be an arbitrary internal node whose children are both leaves. Let T’ be the tree obtained by removing I’s children from T. T’ has n-1 internal nodes and n leaves. We did not remove any internal nodes, but the node I becomes a leaf in T’. So T’ has one less internal node than T.
We have also removed two leaves, but we made a new one instead, so T’ has one less leaf than T. By the induction hypothesis, T’ has n leaves. Since the number of internal nodes in T’ is one less than in T and the number of leaves is also one less than in T, we conclude that the T also had one more leaf than internal nodes.
![Page 24: Proofs Gone Wrong: A Lecture On Mathematical Writing](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062315/56815193550346895dbfcada/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
Separate what you are trying to prove from the evidence.
The proof is by induction on the number of internal nodes in the tree. The induction hypothesis (IH) is that a non-empty full binary tree with n-1 internal nodes has n leaves.
Let T be an arbitrary full binary tree with n internal nodes. Let I be an arbitrary internal node whose children are both leaves. Let T’ be the tree obtained by removing I’s children from T. We did not remove any internal nodes, but the node I becomes a leaf in T’. So T’ has one less internal node than T. Thus, T’ has n-1 internal nodes.
We have also removed two leaves, but we made a new one instead, so T’ has one less leaf than T. By the induction hypothesis, T’ has n leaves. Since the number of internal nodes in T’ is one less than in T and the number of leaves is also one less than in T, we conclude that the T also had one more leaf than internal nodes. Therefore, T has n + 1 leaves.
![Page 25: Proofs Gone Wrong: A Lecture On Mathematical Writing](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062315/56815193550346895dbfcada/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
Random Paragraph Generator?The proof is by induction on the number of internal nodes in the tree.
The induction hypothesis (IH) is that a non-empty full binary tree with n-1 internal nodes has n leaves.
Let T be an arbitrary full binary tree with n internal nodes. Let I be an arbitrary internal node whose children are both leaves. Let T’ be the tree obtained by removing I’s children from T. We did not remove any internal nodes, but the node I becomes a leaf in T’. So T’ has one less internal node than T. Thus, T’ has n-1 internal nodes.
We have also removed two leaves, but we made a new one instead, so T’ has one less leaf than T. By the induction hypothesis, T’ has n leaves. Since the number of internal nodes in T’ is one less than in T and the number of leaves is also one less than in T, we conclude that the T also had one more leaf than internal nodes. Therefore, T has n + 1 leaves.
![Page 26: Proofs Gone Wrong: A Lecture On Mathematical Writing](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062315/56815193550346895dbfcada/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
Paragraphs are importantThe proof is by induction on the number of internal nodes in the tree.
The induction hypothesis (IH) is that a non-empty full binary tree with n-1 internal nodes has n leaves.
Let T be an arbitrary full binary tree with n internal nodes. Let I be an arbitrary internal node whose children are both leaves. Let T’ be the tree obtained by removing I’s children from T. We did not remove any internal nodes, but the node I becomes a leaf in T’. So T’ has one less internal node than T. Thus, T’ has n-1 internal nodes. We have also removed two leaves, but we made a new one instead, so T’ has one less leaf than T. By the induction hypothesis, T’ has n leaves. Since the number of internal nodes in T’ is one less than in T and the number of leaves is also one less than in T, we conclude that the T also had one more leaf than internal nodes. Therefore, T has n + 1 leaves.
![Page 27: Proofs Gone Wrong: A Lecture On Mathematical Writing](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062315/56815193550346895dbfcada/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
Good proofs lead to shorter proofs.
The proof is by induction on the number of internal nodes in the tree. The induction hypothesis (IH) is that a non-empty full binary tree with n-1 internal nodes has n leaves.
Let T be an arbitrary full binary tree with n internal nodes. Let I be an arbitrary internal node whose children are both leaves. Let T’ be the tree obtained by removing I’s children from T. We did not remove any internal nodes, but the node I becomes a leaf in T’. So T’ has one less internal node than T. Thus, T’ has n-1 internal nodes. We have also removed two leaves, but we made a new one instead, so T’ has one less leaf than T. By the induction hypothesis, T’ has n leaves. Since the number of internal nodes in T’ is one less than in T and the number of leaves is also one less than in T, we conclude that the T also had one more leaf than internal nodes. Therefore, T has n + 1 leaves.
![Page 28: Proofs Gone Wrong: A Lecture On Mathematical Writing](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062315/56815193550346895dbfcada/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
Be concise, don’t blabber.The proof is by induction on the number of internal nodes in the tree.
The induction hypothesis (IH) is that a non-empty full binary tree with n-1 internal nodes has n leaves.
Let T be an arbitrary full binary tree with n internal nodes. Let I be an arbitrary internal node whose children are both leaves. Let T’ be the tree obtained by removing I’s children from T. We did not remove any internal nodes, but the node I becomes a leaf in T’. Thus, T’ has n-1 internal nodes, and, by the IH, n leaves. However, by the way we constructed T’, it has one less leaf than T. Therefore, T has n + 1 leaves.
![Page 29: Proofs Gone Wrong: A Lecture On Mathematical Writing](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062315/56815193550346895dbfcada/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
Other
• Spelling, English grammar…• Math errors…
– base case?• Rules have exceptions
![Page 30: Proofs Gone Wrong: A Lecture On Mathematical Writing](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062315/56815193550346895dbfcada/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
Correct Proof(100)The proof is by induction on the number of internal nodes in the tree.
The induction hypothesis (IH) is that a non-empty full binary tree with n-1 internal nodes has n leaves.
For the base case, we have n=0. This means that the tree has one leaf and zero internal nodes, proving the IH.
For the general case, assume the IH holds for n-1. Let T be an arbitrary tree with n internal nodes. Let I be an arbitrary internal node whose children are both leaves. Let T’ be the tree obtained by removing I’s children from T. T’ has n-1 internal nodes, and, by the IH, n leaves. However, by the way we constructed T’, it has one less leaf than T. Therefore, T has n + 1 leaves.
By induction, the IH holds for all values of n>0. The statement of the theorem follows.
![Page 31: Proofs Gone Wrong: A Lecture On Mathematical Writing](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062315/56815193550346895dbfcada/html5/thumbnails/31.jpg)
Summary• Define all terms/variables.• Be concise / don’t be vague / avoid uncertain language.• Always make it clear what you are trying to do.• Remove everything that is not necessary for the proof to work• Avoid ambiguous pronouns.• Separate what you are trying to prove from the evidence.• Don’t redefine variables.• Avoid passive voice.• Use paragraphs to give your argument structure.• Keep the vocab simple.• Use present tense.• Type your proof