ProofWiki:Jokes/Proof Methods

Proof by Triviality
It trivially follows that $P \ne NP$.

Proof by Example
Thus $\powerset S$ is strictly larger than $S$ as is seen in the example $S=\{0,1\}$.

Proof by Exercise
The proof is left as a trivial exercise for the reader.

Proof by Non-Existent Citation
For the proof of Fermat's Last Theorem, see Fermat's commentary on Arithmetica.

Proof by Margin Size
This theorem has a truly marvelous proof which this margin is too narrow to contain.

Proof by Authority
Fermat said that this theorem is true, and who are we to argue?

Proof by Reduction to Wrong Problem
To see that $P \ne NP$, we simply reduce to the Chinese Remainder Theorem.

Proof by Generalization in the Obvious Way
To prove Fermat's Last Theorem, we simply generalize his proof of the $n=4$ case in the obvious way.

Proof by Lack of Counterexample
Computer programs haven't found a counter example all the way to $n=3,000,000$, so it must hold for all $n$.

Proof by Simple Corollary
Thus there is no surjection from $S$ to $\powerset S$.

The Continuum Hypothesis follows as a simple corollary.

Proof by Ontological Argument
The greatest proof that ZF implies Choice exists in the mind.

If it didn't exist in reality then a greater proof would exist, a contradiction.

Thus, the greatest proof of ZF implying Choice exists in reality.

Proof by Gruesome Predicate
Let '$x$ is griemann' mean '$x$ is green and was first observed before January 1, 3000, or the Riemann Hypothesis holds'.

All emeralds thus far observed have been griemann, as they have been green and observed before January 1, 3000.

By philosophical induction, all emeralds observed in the future will be griemann. Thus, after January 1, 3000, the Riemann Hypothesis will hold.

Proof by Curry's Paradox
Observe the proposition 'This proposition is true, therefore $P \ne NP$.'

Assume for contradiction that it isn't true.

Then its premise is false, making it true.

Thus the proposition is true, validating its premise.

Therefore $P \ne NP$.

Proof by Inspection
Upon simple inspection, one sees that the Continuum Hypothesis holds.

Proof by Conjecture
Let us make the following bold conjecture: $P \ne NP$.

Proof by Conjecture Reference
It has been boldly conjectured that $P \ne NP$.

Proof by Recollection
Recall the proof for the Riemann Hypothesis previously elaborated.

Proof by Being an Engineer
As this is an engineering class, we will leave it to the mathematicians to prove that this function is differentiable.

Proof by Thwarting Satan
Any doubts that you have about this theorem are just the work of Satan.

We must stay strong in our belief of a proof.

Proof by Inter-Universal Teichmuller Theory
It is a trivial implication of these papers that the abc conjecture holds.

Proof by Publishing in Your Own Journal
The result must be true.

It was published in a journal of which I am chief editor.

Proof by
is working on a proof, so while a proof is presently unknown, we trust that we will have one soon.

Proof by Assuming the Necessary Assumptions
Assuming the necessary assumptions, it follows that the function is differentiable.

Proof by Repetition
The result follows by baseless assertion.

In other words, by baseless assertion, the result follows.

Hence, by baseless assertion, we can assume the result.

Proof by Impossible Exhaustion
Thus, this property holds for all sets, as we see by exhaustively checking each set.

Proof by Crank
u r not clevr enuf to understand dis, wy i bother to tel u wat it means, u r just editor and hav no brain, u defaming famus and eligable seintist