david petry <email@example.com> writes:
> On Wednesday, January 30, 2013 1:58:25 PM UTC-8, Toni...@yahoo.com wrote: > >> How in the world can a serious MATHEMATICIAN _claim_ that something written in a book/paper has proved "once and for all" that so and so and then, later, he whines he has no expertise, interest and etc. in the paper/book's claims TO DO SO?? > > > The word "proof" has two meanings: > > 1) Informally, a proof is a compelling argument using the > intuitively understood reasoning that we have acquired from our > experience in the real world. It is entirely possible that that > intuitively understood reasoning has never been completely and > accurately formalized. > > 2) A purely formal construct that is inspired by the informal notion > of proof but may not be an entirely accurate model of that informal > notion. > > > When we debate the question of whether ZFC has accurately captured > our intuitive notion of what a proof is, we must rely on the first > definition. It is reasonable for mathematicians to get involved in > such a debate.
WM has bigger fish to fry.
He thinks that he's proved ZF is inconsistent, and hence the second meaning is closer to the relevant sense.
I don't know if that's what he's doing on p. 112, mind you, but at least sometimes, he is presenting what he mistakenly believes is a valid, mathematical proof.
-- Jesse F. Hughes
"The Hammer has arrived." -- James S. Harris, Feb. 14 2006