3 ms·
As a mathematician, I find evidence-based arguments very convincing... where do you think that QED comes from, the planet of magic unicorns? Purely mathematica
by donw 17y ago
As a mathematician, I find evidence-based arguments very convincing... where do you think that QED comes from, the planet of magic unicorns?
Purely mathematical proofs are nothing but supplying a pile of evidence, in the form of theorems and facts that both the proof-reader and proof-writer agree on, to support the argument that the proof is attempting to make.
What you have done in your article is this:
"X implies Y, QED."
And when people pointed this out, you balked, rather than writing a follow up that looked like this:
"X may imply Y under many circumstances. Take X. A, B, C, and Q are very common implementations of X, and all of them do Y, based on the following analysis..."
- RiderOfGiraffes 17y agoMy article? But leaving that aside, I simply don't understand your points at all. In what way is a mathematical proof "a pile of evidence"? Consider, as a simple, single example the Banach-Tarski theorem. To help me understand you, perhaps you could explain how the proof of that is "a pile of evidence." As I said elsewhere, I'm baffled by the responses here, so I'm not going to reply any more until, and if, I understand the points of view being expressed. EDIT: speeling cerrocted