= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Douglas_Knight comments on Open Thread, November 16–30, 2012 - 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 (213)
It sounds to me that you (or Uspensky) are trying to define "proof" to mean all good things. Perhaps this come from a belief that mathematics is synonymous with proof. Arguing about definitions is generally bad and one common failure mode is to define all good things together. Have you read Thurston? He found a trade-off between proofs (in the usual sense) and other goals.
I don't understand what that means, and what exactly do you think it's wrong with the definition offered. Certainly it doesn't encompass definitions, axioms, conjectures, intuition, background knowledge and other good things in mathematics.
I know and value Thurston's paper, and again, don't quite see the relevance.