Virgil
Posts:
4,482
Registered:
1/6/11
|
|
Re: Endorsement of Wolfgang Mueckenheim from a serious mathematician
Posted:
Jan 31, 2013 1:09 AM
|
|
In article <87halyi39k.fsf@phiwumbda.org>,
"Jesse F. Hughes" <jesse@phiwumbda.org> wrote:
> david petry <david_lawrence_petry@yahoo.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.
One of the problems with WM's "proofs" is that he quite often sneaks in
his conclusion, or at least a large part of it, as an assumption in his
arguments.
--
|
|
