Status Updates From Mathematical Reasoning: Wri...

Every book on proofs says: the proof is written differently from how it's created. Yet thought process is the main insight! Reminds me of Ron Maimon on reading scientific classics: http://qr.ae/TUIrba

Just finished section 1.2, although haven't done exercises. Should ignore progress checks for LaTeX, but should mosdef type up exercises. Also learn lingo e.g. ‘we assume…’, ‘substitution’ etc

The “know-show table” is similar to Solow's “forward-backward process”, where you construct a table. It's weird that in the preface author mentioned that “mathematical reasoning” courses are often used in unis between calculus and advanced maths. Why do we think teaching calculus is both easy and mandatory, but teaching simple discrete maths isn't? Historical accident? Or ubiquity of calculus in engineering?

Finished 1.1. So far seems very similar to Velleman or Hammack. Progress Checks (rapid quizzes very often in the text) are good. Implication (→) is introduced before propositional logic and the motivation for ‘false hypothesis means true implication’ is confusing (as it's everywhere), but on p8 the example of Ed having $52 in his wallet is the first time I see someone giving a clear motivation.