Vladimir_Nesov comments on Correlated decision making: a complete theory - Less Wrong

7 Post author: Stuart_Armstrong 26 September 2009 11:47AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (22)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: Stuart_Armstrong 27 September 2009 08:21:50AM 3 points [-]

I'm curious, why are mathematicians sloppier than others?

I think it's because we're mainly focused on getting ideas right - most of the time, writing out the equation is merely a confirmation of what we allready know to be true. So often, a mathmo will write out a series of equations where the beginning will be true, the middle completely wrong, and the conclusion correct.

As for general linguistic sloppiness, that probably derives from the feeling that "hey my math is good, so don't mess me about my words".

If that's true, I've wasted a significant chunk of my life reviewing my writings for errors. :-(

I've done that too - I'm just not very good at catching them. And it's only a waste if you have a typo-tolerant audience.

Comment author: Vladimir_Nesov 27 September 2009 09:29:30AM *  1 point [-]

Only yesterday I read this digression in Girard's The Blind Spot:

Once in a while I would like to indulge into an anecdote concerning the genesis of the proof. The criterion was found by the end of 1985; then I remained more than six months making circles around the "splitting tensor". One nice day of August 1986, I woke up in a camping of Siena and I had got the proof: I therefore sat down and wrote a manuscript of 10 pages. One month later, I was copying this with a typewriter, and I discovered that one of my lemmas was wrong: no importance, I made another lemma! This illustrates the fact, neglected by the formalist ideology, that a proof is not putting side by side logical rules, it is a global perception: since I had found the concept of empire, I had my theorem and the faulty lemma was no more than a misprint.