|
|
[HM] Faulty Proofs in the History of Mathematics
Posted:
Oct 25, 2004 8:03 AM
|
|
Historia Matematica
Thanks for Nimish for circulating this. I thought I should
clarify what I am looking for and why.
My interest is in discovering *how* it is possible for a
significant error in a proof to remain undetected for years. This
can happen even when a counter-example to the theorem is known.
With the standard logical account of proof, this shouldn't happen.
Under this logic-based account, it should be a mechanical process
to check a proof. Even before the age of computers, armies of
PhD students could be asked to do this. I'm looking at alternative
models of proof that admit such persistent errors.
So I am especially interested in *persistent* faulty proofs,
ie ones where the error has been hard to detect.
Thanks
Alan Bundy
Nimish Shah wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Earlier on this week I was at a Royal Society Scientific Discussion
> meeting on the Nature of Mathematical Proofs and Professor Alan Bundy
> (bundy@inf.ed.ac.uk) asked me if I knew of faulty proofs in the History
> of Mathematics. I cited the ones that I knew about and said that I
> would follow it up.
>
> Hence does anybody know of any journal articles, books, experts, etc
> that deal with faulty proofs and especially *why* they turned out to be
> faulty?
>
> With kind regards,
> Nim.
>
> NB. On behalf of Professor Bundy, could you please cc him a copy of your
> reply.
--
New Postal Address: School of Informatics, University of Edinburgh,
Appleton Tower, Crichton St, Edinburgh EH8 9LE, UK.
Telephone Number: +44-131-650-2716,
Email: A.Bundy@ed.ac.uk.
New Web Page: <a href="http://homepages.inf.ed.ac.uk/bundy/">http://homepages.inf.ed.ac.uk/bundy/</a>
|
|
