Path: csiph.com!xmission!news.snarked.org!news.linkpendium.com!news.linkpendium.com!panix!not-for-mail
From: cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross)
Newsgroups: comp.programming
Subject: Re: I will provide you with a more rigorous logical proof..
Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2018 20:02:36 +0000 (UTC)
Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and UNIX, NYC
Lines: 15
Message-ID: <p8rpcs$b7n$2@reader2.panix.com>
References: <p8piv7$nmb$7@dont-email.me> <825fb3d0-c2df-483b-8779-b9dc71327180@googlegroups.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: spitfire.i.gajendra.net
X-Trace: reader2.panix.com 1521576156 11511 166.84.136.80 (20 Mar 2018 20:02:36 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: abuse@panix.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2018 20:02:36 +0000 (UTC)
X-Newsreader: trn 4.0-test77 (Sep 1, 2010)
Originator: cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross)
Xref: csiph.com comp.programming:8512

In article <825fb3d0-c2df-483b-8779-b9dc71327180@googlegroups.com>,
Chad  <cdalten@gmail.com> wrote:
>Well that pretty much narrows it down to like how many types of math proofs used in programming? The one I know are proof by Induction and
>proof by contradiction. I've also done some proofs that involve both necessary and sufficient conditions. 
>
>And there is also a class of proofs that involve using delta/epsilon. I'm that that sure what the formal name of it though.

Proofs that use epsilon/delta reductions tend to fall into the category of constructive proofs.

>It is similar to the first part of proof by Induction in that it involves using algebra for the hypothesis.

I think you mean analysis.

	- Dan C.