My memory tells me that "justify" has been supplied to describe some informal verification, not necessarily formal proof. I wonder if it is true? If yes, in what feeling is "justify" informal? For example, only should prove necessarity not sufficiency?

Thanks and regards!

A computation, effectively lassist out, is of course a proof. However, many type of students, after years of multiple choice tests, have actually learned to take the point of see that the answer is the only thing that matters.

"Justify" can be a reminder that the trouble will be graded very closely, that (contrary to their usual experience) a slapdash computation will not necessarily get complete marks.

You are watching: What does it mean to justify your answer

I do not think that "justify" carries any connotation of "you need just present need however not sufficiency."

"Prove," in a course conmessage, have the right to often expect that an extra or less certain set of tools have to be provided. "Justify" has an extra informal feel, yet I carry out not think of it as carrying a reduced level of precision.

To me, "justify" means to lay out the steustatiushistory.orgematical believed process step by step, so that the line from the founding allude to the ending point is connected.

It is a bit much less formal than a proof, which has actually certain logical demands, yet it indicates, "show sufficient work-related so that I know that you get the entirety point."

I likewise encounter "justify", other than as a synonym for "prove", in meta-steustatiushistory.orgematical conversation. Sometimes (most the time) the writer of a book will design a notation for a certain object being studied. In this case he/she could "justify" the created notation, which commonly means giving a reason why it"s not arbitrary.

For example, while the amount of real valued attributes is a different operation than the sum of actual numbers, the exact same symbol "+" is provided. I do not think this is the finest instance, however there"s a plethora of them if one looks.

I guess justify implies don"t assume ameans.

Some possible exam questions:

1 Prove Borel-Cantelli Lemma.

2 Show that the series given below satisfies the differential equation. Justify all your actions.

3 Show that the series offered below satisfies the differential equation. You carry out not need to justify switching derivative and summation.

In case 2, the professor is saying one cannot assume certain steps are valid as was done in previous classes. In this class, we **proved** points we assumed away in previous classes. You are to **prove** them below also.

In situation 3, the professor is saying one have the right to assume said actions are valid.

Thanks for contributing a solution to steustatiushistory.orgematics Stack Exchange!

Please be certain to*answer the question*. Provide details and share your research!

But *avoid* …

Use steustatiushistory.orgJax to format equations. steustatiushistory.orgJax referral.

See more: The Big Apple: “I’M So Hungry I Could Eat A Horse Origin

To learn even more, see our tips on writing great answers.

Article Your Answer Discard

By clicking “Article Your Answer”, you agree to our regards to service, privacy plan and also cookie plan

## Not the answer you're looking for? Browse various other questions tagged terminology or ask your own question.

Lost in terminology: What is the definition of the words "Constraint" and also "Parameter" in a goodness of fit?

When should I classify a statement as "undefined" versus "vacuously true/false": ramifications for induction

website style / logo design © 2021 Stack Exadjust Inc; user contributions licensed under cc by-sa. rev2021.9.2.40142

Your privacy

By clicking “Accept all cookies”, you agree Stack Exreadjust deserve to keep cookies on your gadget and also discshed information in accordance via our Cookie Policy.