
Re: Simple versus formal proof?
Posted:
Jun 26, 2006 4:54 AM


Ken Pledger wrote: > That reminds me of a little gem in an old Schaum textbook > "Abstract Algebra" by Joong Fang. After a discussion of formal logical > proofs, which he calls "demonstrations", his Definition 1.2.4 says: > > "A mathematical _proof_ is a set of representative clues, intelligible > to whom it is intended, which point to the existence of a demonstration."
Which suggests to me that the set of "mathematical proofs" is a stereotypical fuzzy set, where there are shades of grey between what is, and isn't a proof (e.g. between an unambiguous proof and a restatement of the theorem), and where the set membership depends on the context.
Cheers,
Rossc

