Douglas_Knight comments on Proofs, Implications, and Models - Less Wrong

58 Post author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 30 October 2012 01:02PM

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

Comments (209)

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

Comment author: JoshuaZ 30 October 2012 03:32:26AM *  14 points [-]

I can attest by spot-checking for small N that even most mathematicians have not been exposed to this idea. It's the standard concept in mathematical logic, but for some odd reason, the knowledge seems constrained to the study of "mathematical logic" as a separate field, which not all mathematicians are interested in (many just want to do Diophantine analysis or whatever).

I'm surprised by this claim. Most mathematicians have at least some understanding of mathematical logic. What you may be encountering are people who simply haven't had to think about these issues in a while. But your use of Diophantine analysis, a subbranch of number theory, as your other example is a bit strange because number theory and algebra have become quite adept in the last few years at using model theory to show the existence of proofs even when one can't point to the proof in question. The classical example is the Ax-Grothendieck theorem, Terry Tao discusses this and some related issues here. Similarly , Mochizuki's attempted proof of the ABC conjecture (as I very roughly understand it) requires delicate work with models.

Comment author: Douglas_Knight 01 November 2012 03:56:59AM 0 points [-]

How about you survey mathematicians?