trustme.bro/r/…
✓ checked
trust me, bro:
here is the receipt.
the claim
A mathematical proof necessarily entails an explanation.
the verdict
REFUTED
the evidence says no
refutedsupported
the weight of evidence
0 sources for · 1 against
AS REPORTEDno primary record reached; this is what the reporting says

Evidence indicates that insight and explanation can be separated from formal rigour and proof, showing that a mathematical proof does not necessarily entail an explanation.

Evidence against · 1
2021 · cited by 0
In this paper we investigate undergraduate mathematics students' conceptions of rigour and insight. We conducted comparative judgement experiments in which students were asked to judge different proofs of the same theorem with five separate criteria: rigour, insight, understanding, simplicity and assessment marks. We predicted, and our experiment found, that rigour is a reliable construct. We predicted that insight is also a reliable construct but asking students to judge on the basis of ``which proof gives you more insight into why a theorem is true'' did not result in a reliable judging scal
See more details
The analysis

rails:sufficiency:refuted:single_source:for=0+0p:against=1+0p | v55:sufficiency

Everything we examined (1)
This check searched the claim as stated. It did not run a separate search for evidence against it.
  1. Investigating insight and rigour as separate constructs in mathematical proofreferenceno side taken
This receipt carries no identity, shared or not. Sharing publishes your connection to it, not your data.
Check your own claim
Challenge the receipt
trust me, bro: win the argument, pass the class, survive peer review.
This receipt is an automated verdict against our published method · not an opinion about any author or publication.
Terms · Privacy · How verdicts work · Dispute this receipt