Talk:Reciprocal of Real Exponential

suggested approach
Since the implications are bidirectional, would it be a more elegant proof to turn it upside down, starting with $\exp 0 = 1$ and using $\implies$ to go back the other direction to the required result? As it is, it sort of requires the reader to philosophically to start with what he needs to prove, then derive a truth, and then mentally backtrack back up the stack of logic to return to his starting point, which feels inelegant. --prime mover (talk) 15:40, 11 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I suppose it would. My thought process is to start with the goal in mind and move forward, so as the reduce the amount of that "magic" that happens in proofs. You're probably right though. I'll do my bidirectionals in this style from now on. --Keith.U (talk) 15:56, 11 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I contend that you don't need bidirectionals unless you are proving equivalence. I would go further, and suggest that using biconditionals is suboptimal. --prime mover (talk) 16:06, 11 July 2016 (UTC)