Is it worth learning proofs?

[SE_JM]

Hello,
I heard that students who do well in methods are those who know what exactly knows what is going on, and not just applying formulas.
That's why I decided to look into "proofs", like the proof of the product rule, quotient rule etc..
is that useful? are there usually questions in the exam that ask you for a proof of a certain rule?

thanks in advance

[ikiwi]

You need to know whats going on as in being able to read behind the lines of the block of useless text VCAA makes you read and figuring out what equation to use or how to solve it. You don't need to understand as deep as proofs, its not in the study design (I think), so unless you're genuinely interested in them, you don't need to waste your time learning them. I'm pretty sure you won't be asked for proofs in the exams.

[SE_JM]

thanks

[keltingmeith]

You should know proofs just because they provide the basis of mathematics. You should know proofs, because it shows a certain beauty that is inherent in all mathematics. You should know proofs because if you can understand those proofs, you have a better understanding of the mathematical theory than most mathematical students.

If you only want to learn them to pick up a couple of extra marks from VCAA for reproducing those proofs, don't bother - you'll only waste your time.

[SE_JM]

You should know proofs just because they provide the basis of mathematics. You should know proofs, because it shows a certain beauty that is inherent in all mathematics. You should know proofs because if you can understand those proofs, you have a better understanding of the mathematical theory than most mathematical students.

If you only want to learn them to pick up a couple of extra marks from VCAA for reproducing those proofs, don't bother - you'll only waste your time.

thanks for the advice! I decided to keep learning the proofs of formulas because I tended to understand the concept better

[lzxnl]

There are two types of learning you see in VCE. The first type, and by far the most common, is learning only what is required to pass exams. Sure, you may get good grades with this style of learning, but your knowledge may be based upon a rather shaky foundation. (I would say engineers face this issue when learning maths non-rigorously but the engineering students out there may get offended )
The second type of learning is learning to satisfy one's curiosity. Those who learn for this reason will generally have a much more solid foundation because they will want to know why things are the way they are. This, for instance, was what prompted me to learn Methods in year 9.

The question you have to ask yourself is, which category do you fall under? If the former, then you don't need to spend time on learning proofs. If the latter, I highly recommend you do. Maths that is rote-learned is easily forgotten.

Disclaimer: I am guilty of the former style of learning when learning life-science related things and when doing English Language

[SE_JM]

Thanks for your advice lzxnl
I, too have to admit that i'm the former learner for subjects that i'm not very interested in *cough* english *cough*
BUT, maths is by far my favourite subject, so I'll take up your advice

btw, learning methods in year 9 is super impressive. 

EDIT: don't be offended, those who like english