The List This list is generally written for problems to find.

For problems to prove, substitute theorem for problem, hypothesis for data, and conclusion for unknown. Understanding the Problem First you must understand the problem. What is the unknown? What are the data? What is the condition? Is it possible to satisfy the condition? Is the condition sufficient to determine the unknown? Is it insufficient, redundant, or contradictory? Draw a figure. Introduce suitable notation. Separate the parts of the condition. Devising a Plan Find the connection between the data and the unknown. If an immediate connection cant be found, you might have to consider auxiliary problems. Obtain a plan of the solution. Have you seen it before? In a slightly different form? Do you know a related problem? A theorem that could be useful? Look at the unknown: Try to think of a familiar problem with a similar unknown. Start working towards the solution from the unknown. This is the preferable method because it focuses on the unknown. Here is a problem related to yours and solved before. Could you use it? Its result or method? Should you introduce some auxiliary element to make its use possible? Auxiliary elements: e.g. auxiliary shapes, auxiliary unknowns, auxiliary theorems. Allow us to make use of related, previously solved problems. There should be apt justification for adding auxiliary elements, such as going back to definitions. The risk of introducing an auxiliary problem is that it distracts from the original problem. Be sure to exhaust other routes first. Finding auxiliary problems: Look at the unknown. Vary the problem. Equivalent auxiliary problems have the same solutions, so chains of auxiliary problems will end at the solution for the original problem. Could you restate the problem? Go back to definitions. Sometimes you must use different definitions for the same mathematical object (e.g. the surface area of a sphere, a parabola, ellipse, etc.) in order to eliminate technical terms. Definitions also help confirm the accuracy of a result, which must include all essential notions If you cant solve the problem, try to solve a more accessible related problem. The related problem may be more general than, more special than, or analogous to the proposed problem. Analogy: e.g from 3D to 2D. Sometimes you have to vary the analogous problem so that the method or result resemble the original problem more closely. Types of analogous relationships: i. Two mathematical objects are governed by the same rules.

ii. The rule that holds for the elements of one mathematical object hold for the corresponding elements of the other mathematical object (holohedral isomorphism). iii. An extension for the rule that holds for the elements of one mathematical object holds for the corresponding elements of the other mathematical object (merohedral isomorphism). Could you solve part of the problem? Keep only part of the condition, drop the other. How far is the unknown determined and how can it vary? Could you derive something useful from the data? Start working towards the solution from the data. Use the given data to the fullest extent. Could you think of other data that would help to determine the unknown? Could you change the unknown, the data, or both so that the new unknown and new data are more closely related? Did you use all the data? The whole condition? All essential notions involved in the problem?

Carrying Out the Plan Carry out your plan Check each step as you carry out your plan. Can you clearly see that each step is correct? Can you prove that its correct? When devising a solution, all plausible arguments can be considered. But when executing a solution, only conclusive, strict arguments can be accepted. The more thoroughly we confirm our steps when carrying out the plan, the more freely we can reason when devising it. Sometimes you can intuitively see the accuracy of a proposition, and sometimes it requires a formal proof. Looking Back Examine the acquired solution. Can you check the result? Test by estimation: Is the result numerically reasonable? Test by specialization: Does the result hold at the extremes or at special values? Test by dimension: Does the results dimension correspond to the dimension of the unknown? Test by variation: Does the result vary correctly as the data varies (e.g. increasing or decreasing in proportion)? Can you check the argument? Did you use all the data? Can you derive the result differently? Can you see it at a glance? Can you use the result or method for some other problem? Generalization. Sometimes the more general problem is easier to solve than the more specific one, allowing us to realize the important parts necessary to solve the problem, then applying them back to the original, specific problem.

Converting a numeric problem to an algebraic problem allows us to confirm our results and find general solutions. Specialization. Decomposing and Recombining. Understand the problem as a whole in order to judge which details will be significant, and deserve examination. Observe the essential details of the whole, then reconsider the whole. Keep the unknown, change the data and/or condition, or better, merely omit data/conditions. Keep the data, change the unknown and/or condition Change both the data and the unknown Separate the parts of the condition. Keep some, drop others. Analogy. Calculate a different unknown using the relationships established between the data and the unknown in the problem.

Determination, hope, success Ensure that there is sufficient promise to make your problem worthy and interesting, seeking small successes along the way. Persevere through failure, aiming for smaller advances when larger ones dont appear. Analysis, regressive reasoning Assuming what is required as already done, and asking which problem provides a solution to derive such a result--and assuming that such a problem is already done, which problem provides a solution to derive that result, etc. At the end, we reach a problem to which the solution is known or the theorem is true. A man wants to cross the river. He assumes that he can cross the river, and asks which problem, when solved, would allow him to do so. Building a bridge becomes the new problem. He assumes that he can build a bridge, and asks which problem, when solved, would allow him to do so. Get a construction crew. He knows how to get a construction crew, so the problem of getting across the river is solved. A problem is given to find the value of x in an equation. The solver assumes that there is an x that satisfies the equation, and proceeds to manipulate the legitimate equation until he reaches a statement that can be solved or is true (e.g. a quadratic equation), and the result of which would provide the desired value of x. Synthesis, progressive reasoning Starting from the final point in the analysis, which is known to be true or solvable, we retrace our steps and derive the desired result by deriving the solutions to the chain of problems posed by the analysis. The original problem is thus solved. The man orders a construction crew, they build a bridge, and he crosses the river. The analysis has provided a solvable equation. The result of this equation is obtained (e.g. by quadratic formula), the result used to solve the preceding problem, until the final value of x is reached.

Mastery Applying a rule or technique based on proper judgment. Not relying on the words/description of the rule to obscure the purposes it serves. Always use your own brains first. Antonym: Pedantry -- using a rule or technique indiscriminately. Reductio ad absurdum (Reduction to an absurdity) Proves the falsity of an assumption by deriving from it a manifest absurdity. Can be rearranged such that an assumption is proven false without ending at an absurdity, but rather merely by not satisfying the equations or conditions derived. Indirect proof Proving an assertion by showing the falsity of the opposite assumption. Can be rearranged by providing a method/solution to satisfy/generate solutions for the original assertion.