Including proofs of known theorems in master's thesisWhen should one include the proof of known results in a...
What does "don't have a baby" imply or mean in this sentence?
What does it mean when an external ID field follows a DML Statement?
Taking an academic pseudonym?
Is layered encryption more secure than long passwords?
What if you do not believe in the project benefits?
For the Circle of Spores druid's Halo of Spores feature, is your reaction used regardless of whether the other creature succeeds on the saving throw?
Why write a book when there's a movie in my head?
Can I do anything else with aspersions other than cast them?
Is the tritone (A4 / d5) still banned in Roman Catholic music?
Do these large-scale, human power-plant-tending robots from the Matrix movies have a name, in-universe or out?
Isn't a semicolon (';') needed after a function declaration in C++?
Why does this quiz question say that protons and electrons do not combine to form neutrons?
Spells that would be effective against a Modern Day army but would NOT destroy a fantasy one
Is it Safe to Plug an Extension Cord Into a Power Strip?
Was the Soviet N1 really capable of sending 9.6 GB/s of telemetry?
Why Third 'Reich'? Why is 'reich' not translated when 'third' is? What is the English synonym of reich?
How can I persuade an unwilling soul to become willing?
Reduce Reflections
Coworker asking me to not bring cakes due to self control issue. What should I do?
How can I make my enemies feel real and make combat more engaging?
Is there any danger of my neighbor having my wife's signature?
Minimum Viable Product for RTS game?
What does an unprocessed RAW file look like?
Now...where was I?
Including proofs of known theorems in master's thesis
When should one include the proof of known results in a mathematical PhD thesis?Including many pages of serialization code and generated source code in Master's thesis?Master's Thesis - using wikipedia contents in applicationMaster's degree vs. Master's degree without thesisLength of a master's thesis and its literature review?What is the best way of breaking a mathematical development into a sequence of articles?Including own published proofs in PhD thesisCiting propositions etc. in a master's thesisUgly master's thesis but one great proofQuestion concerning proofs of theorems in defense PHD thesisShould I include proofs for known theorems in a doctoral thesis in mathematics?
I am currently writing my master's thesis in computer science. In my topic, I had a lot of papers to read and my main result relies also heavily on some theorems from especially one paper.
In the common literature there are some standard theorems for which the proofs are usually omitted bescause it is common knowledge or radically shortened as in "an easy application of the KKT theorem" and the authors do not want to waste any space for that.
In a master's thesis, however, I would assume that it is good practice to write down those proofs more extensively, since it also shows that you really understand your topic in-depth.
My question is: Would you agree on that and would a citation as in
Proposition 3.14 (see [5]). A nice theorem.
Proof. My extended proof.
be sufficient?
I checked out When should one include the proof of known results in a mathematical PhD thesis? already where the answers suggest that my intuition is right here (for a PhD thesis). My thesis advisor also agrees (which is probably most important), however, I am unsure to what degree this is appropriate.
thesis masters
asked 2 hours ago
ttnickttnick
1114
New contributor
ttnick is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |
I am currently writing my master's thesis in computer science. In my topic, I had a lot of papers to read and my main result relies also heavily on some theorems from especially one paper.
In the common literature there are some standard theorems for which the proofs are usually omitted bescause it is common knowledge or radically shortened as in "an easy application of the KKT theorem" and the authors do not want to waste any space for that.
In a master's thesis, however, I would assume that it is good practice to write down those proofs more extensively, since it also shows that you really understand your topic in-depth.
My question is: Would you agree on that and would a citation as in
Proposition 3.14 (see [5]). A nice theorem.
Proof. My extended proof.
be sufficient?
I checked out When should one include the proof of known results in a mathematical PhD thesis? already where the answers suggest that my intuition is right here (for a PhD thesis). My thesis advisor also agrees (which is probably most important), however, I am unsure to what degree this is appropriate.
thesis masters
asked 2 hours ago
ttnickttnick
1114
New contributor
ttnick is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
1
“cf.” means “compare”. I think you mean “see”.
– Dan Romik
1 hour ago
Absolutely, thanks!
– ttnick
31 mins ago
Why do you need to re-prove something? Why can't you just state the theorem?
– user2768
24 mins ago
add a comment |
I am currently writing my master's thesis in computer science. In my topic, I had a lot of papers to read and my main result relies also heavily on some theorems from especially one paper.
In the common literature there are some standard theorems for which the proofs are usually omitted bescause it is common knowledge or radically shortened as in "an easy application of the KKT theorem" and the authors do not want to waste any space for that.
In a master's thesis, however, I would assume that it is good practice to write down those proofs more extensively, since it also shows that you really understand your topic in-depth.
My question is: Would you agree on that and would a citation as in
Proposition 3.14 (see [5]). A nice theorem.
Proof. My extended proof.
be sufficient?
I checked out When should one include the proof of known results in a mathematical PhD thesis? already where the answers suggest that my intuition is right here (for a PhD thesis). My thesis advisor also agrees (which is probably most important), however, I am unsure to what degree this is appropriate.
thesis masters
asked 2 hours ago
ttnickttnick
1114
New contributor
ttnick is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
I am currently writing my master's thesis in computer science. In my topic, I had a lot of papers to read and my main result relies also heavily on some theorems from especially one paper.
In the common literature there are some standard theorems for which the proofs are usually omitted bescause it is common knowledge or radically shortened as in "an easy application of the KKT theorem" and the authors do not want to waste any space for that.
In a master's thesis, however, I would assume that it is good practice to write down those proofs more extensively, since it also shows that you really understand your topic in-depth.
My question is: Would you agree on that and would a citation as in
Proposition 3.14 (see [5]). A nice theorem.
Proof. My extended proof.
be sufficient?
I checked out When should one include the proof of known results in a mathematical PhD thesis? already where the answers suggest that my intuition is right here (for a PhD thesis). My thesis advisor also agrees (which is probably most important), however, I am unsure to what degree this is appropriate.
thesis masters
thesis masters
asked 2 hours ago
ttnickttnick
1114
New contributor
ttnick is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked 2 hours ago
ttnickttnick
1114
New contributor
ttnick is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
edited 32 mins ago
ttnick
asked 2 hours ago
ttnickttnick
1114
New contributor
ttnick is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked 2 hours ago
ttnickttnick
1114
asked 2 hours ago
ttnickttnick
1114
1114
New contributor
ttnick is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
ttnick is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
ttnick is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
1
“cf.” means “compare”. I think you mean “see”.
– Dan Romik
1 hour ago
Absolutely, thanks!
– ttnick
31 mins ago
Why do you need to re-prove something? Why can't you just state the theorem?
– user2768
24 mins ago
add a comment |
1
“cf.” means “compare”. I think you mean “see”.
– Dan Romik
1 hour ago
Absolutely, thanks!
– ttnick
31 mins ago
Why do you need to re-prove something? Why can't you just state the theorem?
– user2768
24 mins ago
1
1
“cf.” means “compare”. I think you mean “see”.
– Dan Romik
1 hour ago
“cf.” means “compare”. I think you mean “see”.
– Dan Romik
1 hour ago
Absolutely, thanks!
– ttnick
31 mins ago
Absolutely, thanks!
– ttnick
31 mins ago
Why do you need to re-prove something? Why can't you just state the theorem?
– user2768
24 mins ago
Why do you need to re-prove something? Why can't you just state the theorem?
– user2768
24 mins ago
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
It would be a good idea to make it slightly more conspicuous that the theorem (and proof) are not original, e.g.:
The following theorem is due to [5]; for the clarity of our exposition we give a more detailed version of the succinct proof in [5].
This leaves no doubt in the reader's mind that the work is not original, and also explains why you chose to include the proof.
answered 2 hours ago
Tom van der ZandenTom van der Zanden
1,568513
add a comment |
I'm not sure why you assume that the proofs are necessary. I would think that a citation to the theorem is enough, especially as you say, the proofs are "common knowledge" or easily derived. It seems like just padding.
However, there are exceptions. If the main ideas in your thesis would be made more understandable or otherwise enhanced by some proof technique of one of the cited theorems then certainly include such a proof. But if there are, then, fewer such proofs you can make a bigger deal of the citation as user Tom van der Zanden suggests. But note that I'm referring to something in the proof itself, not just the theorem.
This would make the thesis a bit tighter and put more of the focus of it on your own work rather than just explicating the work of others.
answered 1 min ago
BuffyBuffy
48k13158242
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "415"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
ttnick is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2facademia.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f125389%2fincluding-proofs-of-known-theorems-in-masters-thesis%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
It would be a good idea to make it slightly more conspicuous that the theorem (and proof) are not original, e.g.:
The following theorem is due to [5]; for the clarity of our exposition we give a more detailed version of the succinct proof in [5].
This leaves no doubt in the reader's mind that the work is not original, and also explains why you chose to include the proof.
answered 2 hours ago
Tom van der ZandenTom van der Zanden
1,568513
add a comment |
It would be a good idea to make it slightly more conspicuous that the theorem (and proof) are not original, e.g.:
The following theorem is due to [5]; for the clarity of our exposition we give a more detailed version of the succinct proof in [5].
This leaves no doubt in the reader's mind that the work is not original, and also explains why you chose to include the proof.
answered 2 hours ago
Tom van der ZandenTom van der Zanden
1,568513
add a comment |
It would be a good idea to make it slightly more conspicuous that the theorem (and proof) are not original, e.g.:
The following theorem is due to [5]; for the clarity of our exposition we give a more detailed version of the succinct proof in [5].
This leaves no doubt in the reader's mind that the work is not original, and also explains why you chose to include the proof.
answered 2 hours ago
Tom van der ZandenTom van der Zanden
1,568513
It would be a good idea to make it slightly more conspicuous that the theorem (and proof) are not original, e.g.:
The following theorem is due to [5]; for the clarity of our exposition we give a more detailed version of the succinct proof in [5].
This leaves no doubt in the reader's mind that the work is not original, and also explains why you chose to include the proof.
answered 2 hours ago
Tom van der ZandenTom van der Zanden
1,568513
answered 2 hours ago
Tom van der ZandenTom van der Zanden
1,568513
answered 2 hours ago
Tom van der ZandenTom van der Zanden
1,568513
answered 2 hours ago
Tom van der ZandenTom van der Zanden
1,568513
1,568513
add a comment |
add a comment |
I'm not sure why you assume that the proofs are necessary. I would think that a citation to the theorem is enough, especially as you say, the proofs are "common knowledge" or easily derived. It seems like just padding.
However, there are exceptions. If the main ideas in your thesis would be made more understandable or otherwise enhanced by some proof technique of one of the cited theorems then certainly include such a proof. But if there are, then, fewer such proofs you can make a bigger deal of the citation as user Tom van der Zanden suggests. But note that I'm referring to something in the proof itself, not just the theorem.
This would make the thesis a bit tighter and put more of the focus of it on your own work rather than just explicating the work of others.
answered 1 min ago
BuffyBuffy
48k13158242
add a comment |
I'm not sure why you assume that the proofs are necessary. I would think that a citation to the theorem is enough, especially as you say, the proofs are "common knowledge" or easily derived. It seems like just padding.
However, there are exceptions. If the main ideas in your thesis would be made more understandable or otherwise enhanced by some proof technique of one of the cited theorems then certainly include such a proof. But if there are, then, fewer such proofs you can make a bigger deal of the citation as user Tom van der Zanden suggests. But note that I'm referring to something in the proof itself, not just the theorem.
This would make the thesis a bit tighter and put more of the focus of it on your own work rather than just explicating the work of others.
answered 1 min ago
BuffyBuffy
48k13158242
add a comment |
I'm not sure why you assume that the proofs are necessary. I would think that a citation to the theorem is enough, especially as you say, the proofs are "common knowledge" or easily derived. It seems like just padding.
However, there are exceptions. If the main ideas in your thesis would be made more understandable or otherwise enhanced by some proof technique of one of the cited theorems then certainly include such a proof. But if there are, then, fewer such proofs you can make a bigger deal of the citation as user Tom van der Zanden suggests. But note that I'm referring to something in the proof itself, not just the theorem.
This would make the thesis a bit tighter and put more of the focus of it on your own work rather than just explicating the work of others.
answered 1 min ago
BuffyBuffy
48k13158242
I'm not sure why you assume that the proofs are necessary. I would think that a citation to the theorem is enough, especially as you say, the proofs are "common knowledge" or easily derived. It seems like just padding.
However, there are exceptions. If the main ideas in your thesis would be made more understandable or otherwise enhanced by some proof technique of one of the cited theorems then certainly include such a proof. But if there are, then, fewer such proofs you can make a bigger deal of the citation as user Tom van der Zanden suggests. But note that I'm referring to something in the proof itself, not just the theorem.
This would make the thesis a bit tighter and put more of the focus of it on your own work rather than just explicating the work of others.
answered 1 min ago
BuffyBuffy
48k13158242
answered 1 min ago
BuffyBuffy
48k13158242
answered 1 min ago
BuffyBuffy
48k13158242
answered 1 min ago
BuffyBuffy
48k13158242
48k13158242
add a comment |
add a comment |
ttnick is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
ttnick is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
ttnick is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
ttnick is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Thanks for contributing an answer to Academia Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2facademia.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f125389%2fincluding-proofs-of-known-theorems-in-masters-thesis%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
1
“cf.” means “compare”. I think you mean “see”.
– Dan Romik
1 hour ago
Absolutely, thanks!
– ttnick
31 mins ago
Why do you need to re-prove something? Why can't you just state the theorem?
– user2768
24 mins ago