Talk:List of mathematical proofs

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Mathematics Low‑priority

	Mathematics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mathematics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mathematics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MathematicsWikipedia:WikiProject MathematicsTemplate:WikiProject Mathematicsmathematics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-priority on the project's priority scale.

Proofs are generally inappropriate in Wikipedia

I would think that proofs of mathematical statements should not normally be given in articles ("Wikipedia is not a textbook"). Exception must made of course to cases where the proof itself is of substantial interest, e.g. historical proofs of the Pythagorean theorem, Wiles's proof of Fermat's last theorem, Euler's solution to the Koenigsber bridge problem, Goedel's undecidability proof, etc.. Some of the proofs listed here, particularly thse in the "Other articles containing proofs" section, here seem to be inappropriate by this criterion. All the best, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 01:09, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Though the previous comment is old, I hate to leave it sitting here unopposed.

I strongly disagree. There is no such thing as mathematical exposition without proofs, or at least proof sketches. There are a handful of theorems where the statement itself is the interesting point (such as the classification of finite groups), but usually the interest is in the proof itself. E.g. everyone knows the Jordan Curve Theorem--even those who don't know math!--the interest is only in the proof. Goodstein's theorem is silly by itself; the interest is only in the proof. A mathematical reference without proofs is nigh useless and no mathematician would think of purchasing or writing such a thing. It is a textbook's job to systematically develop a theory; that does not excuse WP from including proofs. I don't see how one could say removing proofs from WP would add value.--68.174.84.148 (talk) 04:38, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]