fom
Posts:
1,968
Registered:
12/4/12


Re: Endorsement of Wolfgang Mueckenheim from a serious mathematician
Posted:
Jan 31, 2013 11:41 AM


On 1/31/2013 4:31 AM, Tonicopm@yahoo.com wrote: > On Thursday, January 31, 2013 12:56:53 AM UTC+2, david petry wrote: >> On Wednesday, January 30, 2013 1:58:25 PM UTC8, 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:
Argument from belief, as discussed in Aristotle's "Topics"
Argument from principles, as discussed in Aristotle's "Posterior Analytics"
Modern mathematical logic has opted for the former, rhetorical notion of proof because of Peano, Russell, Wittgenstein, Skolem, Carnap, Goedel, Quine, and Tarski.
Sad, isn't it?

