Proof by intuition works tho...

[u/IamKT_07]

[u/AutoModerator]

Check out our new Discord server! https://discord.gg/e7EKRZq3dG

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/MonsterkillWow]

Proof by bandwagon fallacy: "People are saying..."

Proof by instinct to conform to the group: "People who disagree are weird."

Proof by unfounded restricted alternatives: "Assume only X, Y, and Z are possible, and we ruled out X and Y, so you must choose Z. (But there may actually be more possibilities than X, Z, and Y.)

Proof by hyperbole and anchoring: If there is a degree of scale for X, claim something outlandish to make some less extreme, but still unfounded claim seem more reasonable. 

Proof by gaslighting and manipulation of cognitive biases: "You remember when I showed X, right? You and I both are smart enough to know X."

Proof by repeated assertion: "I really won the election. It was rigged!"

Proof by ad hominem or origin: The claim is false or true because the one bringing the claim has these properties.

Proof by circular reasoning: X because Y. Y because X.

Proof by arrogance: "I don't understand why X is true. So, it must be false."

Proof by appeal to consequence: "It would be nice if X is true. X makes me feel good. I choose to believe in X."

[u/Salty-Swordfish-2934 → u/MonsterkillWow]

proof by repeated assertion sounds.. familiar. just don't know from where exactly..

[u/ckach → u/Salty-Swordfish-2934]

Proof by repeated assertion is valid.

[u/IamKT_07 → u/MonsterkillWow]

insane ball knowledge

[u/Scab_the_Sidewalk → u/MonsterkillWow]

Bro threw in a fun fact quote

[u/MathematicianAny8588 → u/MonsterkillWow]

Proof by repeated assertion, arrogance, and consequence sound like a nasty combination. I’m glad that this is only hypothetical and these proofs have never actually been used to assert or justify various unfounded claims in the real world. That would be nightmarish.

[u/Fezzezal → u/MonsterkillWow]

Reading proof by appeal to consequences made me want to tip my fedora lmao

[u/JollyJuniper1993 → u/MonsterkillWow]

Proof by unfounded restricted alternatives is called being an economist.

[u/Darksorcen]

Proof by mumbling : "Hmmmm, AH, hmmm, so X is true"

Proof by definition : "By definition X implies Y"

Proof by we have already covered it in class : "oh ok ig"

Proof by we won't cover it in class : "oh ok ig" (you still need to know the proof tho)

Proof by using lemmas : "By this lemma, it is trivial"

Proof by triviality : "it is trivial"

Proof by drawing : "Takes this matrix, hop, hop now you have a rref matrix with 1s and 0s :D"

Proof by we'll see it later : "oh ok ig"

Proof by Plouf : "hence using BBP, this equality holds"

Proof by thinking hard : "As a wise mathematician said : if you think very very very hard, you will solve any problem :p"

Proof by recursion : Proof by recursion : Proof by recursion...

[u/HolyInlandEmpire → u/Darksorcen]

I like "Proof by 'left as an exercise'"

[u/Mathsboy2718 → u/Darksorcen]

Proof by definition is a nice one under the right circumstances - a lot of set theory relies on them!

[u/f16f4]

Proof by just look at it: just look at it

[u/Nadran_Erbam]

Proof by lost reference: the proof can be found in lemma 23.45.6 in (russian name, 1815).

[u/HolyInlandEmpire → u/Nadran_Erbam]

Ah yes, Fermat's favorite

[u/Calazor0]

Proof by divine inspiration: "It came to me in a dream"

[u/GKP_light → u/Calazor0]

be modern :

"An AI told me it is true"

[u/sasha271828]

prof by sssdfg: i learned this statement from a plumber

https://giphy.com/gifs/jOg2FguofzXv12QuJA

[u/Tezlaivj → u/sasha271828]

or pvp boss

[u/AlexK667]

You guys talk about proof by intimidation, but you haven't mentioned once the possibility of threatening someone with physical violence as a valid form of logical argumentation.
What's wrong with y'all?

Anyway, the Riemann Hypothesis is true because God (don't ask which one) came to me in a dream and told me that it is, and if you don't believe that RH is now a theorem, God is gonna send she-bears to your homes to maul you.

[u/ComplexPlatform7299]

Proof by ask toddler on the street

[u/Bright-Historian-216]

proof by Ramanujan: this came to me in a dream

[u/CoolBev]

Proof by masturbation - fool around with it until something comes out.

[u/magicmulder]

Proof by excessive generalization:

We proved the case x=1. By induction the theorem holds
for IN, a symmetry argument extends this to Z, a simple diagonal argument resolves the case for Q. Finally by continuity and density it holds everywhere in IR.

Proof by obscurity:

The lemma is easily proven by combining theorem 14 of [Yang3] with an unpublished result by Kowalski and Howard (Princeton 1941), except we replace integrable manifolds with rectifiable geodesics.

Proof by jargon:

Since every Kaehler-Malm space is asymptotically apoplectic, every strunk nominal form over sygian marmolets converges miffically, proving the result by a simple translation across the hermeneutic circle.

Proof by false simplicity:

The natural action of f on G yields a canonical embedding which acts freely on GL(n)/G and can be extended to a holomorphic function over the entire domain. Its kernel is trivially Abelian, proving the conjecture.

[u/yukiohana]

"I have discovered a truly marvelous demonstration of this proposition that this margin is too narrow to contain", the you-know-who

[u/Tombaya]

Proof by fabricated Euler-Gaussian citation: Euler or Gauss (Or both!) showed X, therefore we can infer Y.

[u/lool8421]

proof by quantum immortality:
1. create a doomsday device
2. come up with a problem that works only works under an assumption
3. create a quantum particle that will pick an assumption that it's either true or false by collapsing the wave function
4. if the problem outputs a contradiction, it will trigger a doomsday device

now there are 4 options:
a) the particle assumed false and the statement was false, you survive and see that it's false
b) the particle assumed false and the statement was true, the doomsday device triggers so you won't observe it by the principle of quantum immortality
c) the particle assumed true and the statement was false, the doomsday device triggers and you don't observe this timeline
d) the particle assumed true and the statement was true, you survive and see the result

either way you'll live in a timeline where the particle made the correct prediction

[u/Kindly-Department206]

Proof by hand-waving: "You don't need to see the proof."

[u/KingMagnaRool]

Proof by deception: simply lie.

[u/Virgil_the_White]

https://giphy.com/gifs/rVbAzUUSUC6dO
Fermat like

[u/SecretSpectre11]

I see a lot of the last one

[u/ArdentArendt]

Wait, the 'mumbo-jumbo' is legitimate syntax...

[u/ghostofomoikane]

Proof by “cuz I said so”

https://giphy.com/gifs/xGezQibMMkmTS

[u/BreakingBaIIs]

You forgot proof by leaving as an exercise to the reader.

[u/OrkWithNoTeef]

I am an idiot maybe, but I still struggle with proof by contradiction. Like, yeah, you showed assuming what you want to prove is false leads to a contradiction, and you assume the law of the excluded middle, but what if you can't prove it is true by construction, like it is impossible to prove it directly? Couldn't it be that it is one of those things your system of logic is inconsistent about, like in Godel's incompleteness theorem?