<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!-- generator="wordpress/2.0.3" -->
<rss version="2.0" 
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/">
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Writing good proofs</title>
	<link>http://windowsil.org/2007/10/30/writing-good-proofs/</link>
	<description>Your window into the Wireless Systems Innovation Laboratory</description>
	<pubDate>Sun, 27 May 2012 13:09:58 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.3</generator>

	<item>
		<title>by: Steve Peters</title>
		<link>http://windowsil.org/2007/10/30/writing-good-proofs/#comment-21243</link>
		<pubDate>Wed, 31 Oct 2007 11:03:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://windowsil.org/2007/10/30/writing-good-proofs/#comment-21243</guid>
					<description>Yeah, I agree with you.  In just about every paper it seems like the authors throw all attempts at being clear out the window when they are doing proofs, especially in the appendix.  But it seems like in engineering, as opposed to math, the point of papers is to communicate ideas and intuition rather than proofs.  I wonder how many incorrect proofs get published.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Yeah, I agree with you.  In just about every paper it seems like the authors throw all attempts at being clear out the window when they are doing proofs, especially in the appendix.  But it seems like in engineering, as opposed to math, the point of papers is to communicate ideas and intuition rather than proofs.  I wonder how many incorrect proofs get published.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
</channel>
</rss>

