|
|
Re: Endorsement of Wolfgang Mueckenheim from a serious mathematician
Posted:
Jan 30, 2013 7:51 PM
|
|
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.
--
Jesse F. Hughes
"The Hammer has arrived."
-- James S. Harris, Feb. 14 2006
|
|
