= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
RichardKennaway comments on Open Thread June 2010, Part 4 - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (325)
I learned the opposite: that mathematical proofs can be and should be absolutely true. When they fall short, it is a sign that some confusion still remains in the concepts.
I see no contradiction between these interpretations. :P
If they're never absolutely true (your interpretation), how can they ever be absolutely true (my interpretation)?
I said mathematical proofs aren't absolute because mathematical proofs and refutations are subject to philosophical, linguistic debate - argument about whether the proof fits the concept being played with, argument which can result in (for example) proof-constructed definitions. During this process, one might say that the original proof or refutation is correct, but no longer appropriate, or that the original proof is incorrect. Neither statement implies different behavior.