>>11497436>>11497405I feel like for me, finding counter examples and proving the theorem are essentially the same exercise:
when you are trying to prove theorem, you come across a step in the logic that you can't justify, and analyze this weak step(may lead to a counterexample)
meanwhile, if you're thinking of a counterexample, you need to think of how the counterexample follows the requisites of the theorem, but at some step, breaks away from the steps of possibly weal logic you laid out
