Proof Review Guidelines

.github/workflows/blank.yml

@@ -38,6 +38,7 @@ jobs:
             Misc/Elliptic/Elliptic.tex
             Misc/Automata/Automata.tex
             Misc/Gaussian/Gaussian.tex
+            Misc/ProofReviewGuidelines/ProofReviewGuidelines.tex
             Papers/GK/GK.tex
       - name: Compile Chinese LaTeX documents
         uses: xu-cheng/latex-action@v2
@@ -72,3 +73,4 @@ jobs:
             Elliptic.pdf
             Automata.pdf
             Gaussian.pdf
+            ProofReviewGuidelines.pdf

Misc/ProofReviewGuidelines/ProofReviewGuidelines.tex

@@ -0,0 +1,32 @@
+\documentclass{article}
+\usepackage{hyperref}
+
+\title{Proof review guidelines}
+\author{Cecilia Chan}
+\date{January 2024}
+
+\begin{document}
+
+\maketitle
+
+\section*{Motivation}
+The goal of this document is accumulate knowledge obtained from proof reviews. As we get more feedback, we should generalize the knowledge, make it into the check list below, so that we can check our own proofs. 
+
+\section*{Are all the symbols defined? What are their qualifications?}
+For each symbol used in the proof, we should ask ourselves:
+\begin{itemize}
+    \item Is it defined?
+    \item What are its qualifications?
+\end{itemize}
+Whenever we say for all, what is the domain?
+
+\section*{Are the operations used allowed?}
+For example, we cannot use "greatest" common divisor in an arbitrary Principal Ideal Domain. There isn't a ordering defined there.
+
+\section*{Is it possible to misinterpret?}
+Some common symbols can mean different things in different contexts. For example, 0 can be the additive identity or the zero vector, is it clear from the context?
+
+\section*{Is it hard to read?}
+Sometimes, we say "it is clear" or "it is obvious", it is really clear and obvious? 
+
+\end{document}