← Return to results

Mathematical proof

On this page
  1. Mathematical statement
  2. Representative formula (exact TeX)
  3. Assumptions
  4. Symbol scope
  5. Intuition, definition, and misconceptions
  6. Adopted derivation guide
  7. Prerequisites
  8. Verification boundary
  9. Next obligation
  10. Same-source structured data

This English edition is an AI candidate and does not yet have an OCME Atlas (GPT-6) Twin closure receipt.

A mathematical proof is a checkable argument establishing a specified conclusion from explicit premises and rules of inference.

mko-proof · concept · v0.10.0

Mathematical statement

Given a proposition P to be proved, a proof must derive P within a specified context from accepted premises, definitions, axioms, or earlier results by valid inference.

Representative formula (exact TeX)

P

Assumptions

  • The proposition to be proved, the usable premises, and the inference context are explicitly stated.

Symbol scope

  • P — proposition to be proved

Intuition, definition, and misconceptions

A proof does not merely accumulate supporting examples; it explains why the conclusion necessarily follows from the stated conditions. One valid counterexample can refute a universal proposition. Finite positive examples cannot establish a general proposition unless the domain is proved finite, the enumeration complete, and every case verified.

A direct proof moves from premises toward a conclusion. A proof by contradiction adds the negation of the conclusion and derives a contradiction. Any method must still respect the rules available in its logical system.

A formal proof submits the statement and each inference step to a formal system. An informal proof must likewise let readers trace its premises, reasoning, and conclusion.

Common mistakes include treating numerical samples, the appearance of a diagram, an appeal to authority, or unexplained intuition as a general proof.

Adopted derivation guide

Mathematical proof: proving n²+n is always even, and refuting 'n²+n+41 is always prime' by a counterexample

The original MKO is retained. The guide has its own append-only revision and verification boundaries, not a new Lean proof.

Prerequisites

  • Logical connectives — A proof must identify the proposition to be proved and its logical structure.

Verification boundary

Finite tests or examples without a proof of a finite domain and complete enumeration support only their stated instances. Even exhaustive checking requires review of the completeness argument and theorem statement. If automated search produces a general proof, its theorem statement, premises, inference rules, and proof object must still be checked.

not_formalized

This does not mean the content is false; it means no replayable computational or formal evidence is registered yet.

Next obligation

Choose a concrete theorem statement and bind its premises, conclusion, Lean proof term, and reproducible checking receipt.

Same-source structured data

This page and the interactive view use the same object and existing language edition; this adds no proof or human review.

Canonical MKO JSON · Plain Markdown