In school we were always taught to prove equivalence by splitting an equation into $LHS$ and $RHS$ and working with each side individually until $LHS = RHS$.

For example, prove:

$$2^{k + 1} - 2 = 2(2^k - 1)$$

Which could be done as follows:

$$RHS = 2(2^k - 1)$$

$$ = 2^1 \cdot 2^k - 2$$

$$ = 2^{k + 1} - 2$$

$$ = LHS$$

However, Wikipedia says (although it does not cite any sources):

This abbreviation is seldom if ever used in print; it is very informal.

Is Wikipedia correct, and if this is "very informal", what is the proper, 'formal' way to prove equivalence (without the $LHS$ and $RHS$ abbreviations)?

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I'm sure I've seen that in print... $\endgroup$ – apnorton Feb 6 '13 at 12:12
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I would at least agree that it is seldom used. Usually you just write the actual expression for the left/right hand side. So in this example, replace LHS by $2^{k+1}-2$ and RHS by $2(2^k-1)$. It makes it clearer anyway, because you don't have to look back to see what the left and right hand sides actually were. $\endgroup$ – mdp Feb 6 '13 at 12:13
  • $\begingroup$ As a referee, I would flag any uses of "LHS" or "RHS" in a paper as needing to be corrected before the paper is accepted. $\endgroup$ – Carl Mummert Feb 6 '13 at 12:46

This concerns the abbreviations "LHS" and "RHS", and indeed these are a bit informal, in a formal text they would be probably written out fully as "the left hand side of the above equation...". It is also possible that these are just skipped, as

Prop. $2^{k + 1} - 2 = 2(2^k - 1)$

Proof: $2^{k+1} - 2 = 2^1\cdot 2^k -2=2\cdot (2^k-1)$. -QED-


Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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