Is Sage suitable for writing analysis proofs?

[Meem]

Hi,

(Not sure if this is the correct forum for this question).

When I don't have access to paper and/or a large work surface (for example on a coach seat in an airplane): I try to compose my proofs using LaTeX.

So I copy the previous line -- cross out terms -- perform additional manipulations and continue till I hit a wall or finish the proof.

I'm half decent at LaTeX, but the syntax is so verbose that it becomes tiring. 

I am thinking of using a more compact representation with some possible algebraic support from the underlying system.

I've been (briefly) checking out Sage and am delighted that I can convert stuff to LaTeX.

So I guess my question has the following parts:

1. Is Sage suitable for writing proofs? 

2. Does it have any facilities to keep the arguments/steps in a proof format -- kind of like in LaTeX there is a proof typesetting option?

3. What tutorials should I look at for this type of work -- the stuff I wish to tackle first is mostly simple proofs from say an introductory course in analysis -- mostly delta/epsilon stuff.

Thanks!

[David Joyner]

On Sun, May 5, 2019 at 9:23 AM Meem <memmak...@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi,

(Not sure if this is the correct forum for this question).

When I don't have access to paper and/or a large work surface (for example on a coach seat in an airplane): I try to compose my proofs using LaTeX.

So I copy the previous line -- cross out terms -- perform additional manipulations and continue till I hit a wall or finish the proof.

I'm half decent at LaTeX, but the syntax is so verbose that it becomes tiring. 

I am thinking of using a more compact representation with some possible algebraic support from the underlying system.

I've been (briefly) checking out Sage and am delighted that I can convert stuff to LaTeX.

So I guess my question has the following parts:

1. Is Sage suitable for writing proofs? 

2. Does it have any facilities to keep the arguments/steps in a proof format -- kind of like in LaTeX there is a proof typesetting option?

Are you using sagetex? There's a manual here:

https://doc.sagemath.org/html/en/tutorial/sagetex.html

 

3. What tutorials should I look at for this type of work -- the stuff I wish to tackle first is mostly simple proofs from say an introductory course in analysis -- mostly delta/epsilon stuff.

Thanks!

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-edu" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sage-edu+u...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to sage...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/sage-edu.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[kcrisman]

On Sunday, May 5, 2019 at 10:31:39 AM UTC-4, David Joyner wrote:

On Sun, May 5, 2019 at 9:23 AM Meem <memmak...@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi,

(Not sure if this is the correct forum for this question).

When I don't have access to paper and/or a large work surface (for example on a coach seat in an airplane): I try to compose my proofs using LaTeX.

So I copy the previous line -- cross out terms -- perform additional manipulations and continue till I hit a wall or finish the proof.

I'm half decent at LaTeX, but the syntax is so verbose that it becomes tiring. 

I am thinking of using a more compact representation with some possible algebraic support from the underlying system.

I've been (briefly) checking out Sage and am delighted that I can convert stuff to LaTeX.

So I guess my question has the following parts:

1. Is Sage suitable for writing proofs? 

2. Does it have any facilities to keep the arguments/steps in a proof format -- kind of like in LaTeX there is a proof typesetting option?

Another open-source option you may find more congenial to your needs is Lurch - http://lurchmath.org 

[Meem]

I am aware of it -- let me look at in greater detail.

Thanks!

On Sunday, May 5, 2019 at 10:31:39 AM UTC-4, David Joyner wrote:

On Sun, May 5, 2019 at 9:23 AM Meem <memmak...@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi,

(Not sure if this is the correct forum for this question).

When I don't have access to paper and/or a large work surface (for example on a coach seat in an airplane): I try to compose my proofs using LaTeX.

So I copy the previous line -- cross out terms -- perform additional manipulations and continue till I hit a wall or finish the proof.

I'm half decent at LaTeX, but the syntax is so verbose that it becomes tiring. 

I am thinking of using a more compact representation with some possible algebraic support from the underlying system.

I've been (briefly) checking out Sage and am delighted that I can convert stuff to LaTeX.

So I guess my question has the following parts:

1. Is Sage suitable for writing proofs? 

2. Does it have any facilities to keep the arguments/steps in a proof format -- kind of like in LaTeX there is a proof typesetting option?

Are you using sagetex? There's a manual here:

https://doc.sagemath.org/html/en/tutorial/sagetex.html

 

3. What tutorials should I look at for this type of work -- the stuff I wish to tackle first is mostly simple proofs from say an introductory course in analysis -- mostly delta/epsilon stuff.

Thanks!

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-edu" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sage...@googlegroups.com.

[Meem]

Thanks -- looks interesting

[Oras P.]

You might be interested in LyX as well. It's designed for typesetting, but simplifies a lot of math expressions in LaTeX.

https://www.lyx.org/