Book · 1994
How to Prove It: A Structured Approach
by Daniel J. Velleman
A logic textbook opens with truth tables and spends the rest of its pages making the reader write real mathematical proofs instead of just checking someone else's.
What does Reddit think of How to Prove It: A Structured Approach?
Three mentions in seven years, and all three point at the same audience: programmers who hit a wall with proofs and formal logic. The ↑399 r/learnprogramming comment recommends it as the primer for exactly that, in the same breath as 3Blue1Brown's linear algebra series, self-taught CS treated as a stack of specific resources rather than a curriculum. The r/compsci comment (↑11) arrives from the other direction: someone who taught themselves from CLRS, comfortable with algorithmic rigor, still hits a wall on reading and writing proofs and gets pointed toward Velleman by name. Nobody here treats it as optional. Nobody argues against it either; there's no displayed pushback, no rival book named opposite it. That's thin ground for a verdict, but the direction of every comment agrees: if proofs are the gap, this is the book people actually name, not just gesture at.
Community feedback & reader fit
Themes
- · formal logic primer for programmers
- · the proof-writing gap after CLRS
- · self-taught CS reading stack
- · named without a rival
Common praise
- + The ↑399 comment puts it in the same self-study list as 3Blue1Brown's linear algebra series, not as a standalone assignment.
- + The r/compsci comment (↑11) names it specifically for readers who are fine with CLRS-level algorithms but stall on writing actual proofs.
Common criticism
- − Three mentions total means there's no dissenting comment to weigh against the positive ones; take the enthusiasm as thin evidence, not a verdict.
- − None of the displayed comments describe what's actually inside the book beyond proofs, so you're trusting the title more than a review.
Who it's for
Pick this up if CLRS-level material makes sense but you can't write a rigorous proof yourself, which is exactly the gap the r/compsci comment describes. Self-taught programmers building a resource stack rather than following a course will recognize the ↑399 comment's format: this book, then 3Blue1Brown, then whatever's next. It's a narrow recommendation for a narrow problem, not a general math or CS reading pick.
Mentions over time
Top subreddits
Which Reddit comments matter for How to Prove It: A Structured Approach?
The most relevant excerpts across the subreddits where this book is mentioned — opinionated, argued takes first, then top-upvoted mentions. Click through to read the full thread.
“If you want a primer on logic, and particularly if you want to learn about proofs, check out How to Prove It by Daniel Velleman. For Linear Algebra, start with 3B1B's animated series on [linear algebra](
“One thing that helped me along the way was to see a connection between conditional expressions and boolean algebra. When you're staring at long conditionals in your code, it's easy to get distracted by all the letters, punctuation, and possibly function calls and their parameters, or member accesse…
“Not sure what your math background is, but I'm retaking Calc up to multivariate right now, and have found that mathematical proofs help a bunch with developing my logic sense towards programming. I've also found a lot of value from reviewing geometry and trigonometry concepts and the proofs behind e…
“Seems like most of your problems are math related. It may help to take some sort of “intro to proofs” class going over basic proof techniques, since a lot of those time complexity analysis problems are basically simple proofs. “How to prove it” and “The Book of Proof” are good books in that area. Us…
“I actually had a lot of fun self teaching computer science from CLRS, which is known to be full of proofs/rigor. It seems like you’re having more trouble with the logic side; you should try to find a book focused on mathematical proofs if you want to get better at reading/writing them. Maybe Vellema…
“A lot of these famous books might assume a certain level of “mathematical maturity”. That doesn’t mean knowing advanced math. It just means that you seen and worked with proofs, set theory, etc enough that it’s comfortable to read books with very logical language. Something that might help you becom…
Convinced? Pick up How to Prove It: A Structured Approach
What else does r/learnprogramming read?
Other books mentioned in the same sub, ranked. Shared-sub overlap with this title breaks ties.
How to Prove It: A Structured Approach — frequently asked
Is How to Prove It a good starting point for learning formal logic?+
The one comment that frames it that way (↑399, r/learnprogramming) says yes, recommending it as the primer for logic and proofs specifically, paired with 3Blue1Brown's linear algebra series for the math side. It's a small sample, but the framing is specific rather than vague praise.
Do you need How to Prove It if you've already read CLRS?+
The r/compsci comment (↑11) suggests yes if proofs specifically are the gap. The commenter describes self-teaching successfully from CLRS's algorithmic rigor but still pointing toward Velleman's book for proof-writing itself, treating the two as covering different skills.
What does Reddit actually think of How to Prove It: A Structured Approach?+
There isn't much to go on, three mentions across r/learnprogramming and r/compsci in seven years, but what's there is consistently positive and specific: it's recommended for proofs and logic, not general math, and nobody in the displayed comments argues against it.
Is How to Prove It aimed at programmers or math students?+
Every displayed mention comes from programming-adjacent subreddits, not math ones. Two are r/learnprogramming, and the third is r/compsci, framed around someone self-teaching computer science from CLRS. The recommendation pattern across all three is programmers backfilling formal logic and proof-writing after the fact, not math majors picking up a required text.