>>8411202Proofs must simply exist. they can be useful for understanding concepts, but considering that many of them took the respective authors sometimes years to write, it is generally assumed that you might want to see a few steps to understand the underlying logic, and then just get to the result, so you can apply the result or take it further without having to work the burden yourself while contributing nothing new.
I mean this for operating at a higher level. if you are speaking to undergrad education, then it's sort of a a test to see
1) how well you can take the tools given to you and extend the logic without having to know every detail of their inception, which is critical in any field.
2) how willing you are to dig into the background on your own.
an effective professor/text will give you the steps which show critical pivots in the logic, so that you may gain some understanding of general analytical procedures, and leaves the rest up to you.
I understand that it may be frustrating but it is done for a reason.
