3 ms·
I think the point is that it usually isn't given formally. In practice it's just too tedious to formally specify proofs using some kind of rigorous set-theoreti
by mgsouth 8y ago
I think the point is that it usually isn't given formally. In practice it's just too tedious to formally specify proofs using some kind of rigorous set-theoretic language. It's like building a web app with a Turing machine.
- tome 8y ago> I think the point is that it usually isn't given formally. Is the claim that the opposite of "formal" is "intuitive"? That's news to me!
- usgroup 8y agoI think your statement sounds controversial but I’d be willing to argue that. I.e the opposite of formal is indeed intuitive. I’d start like this : if you’re explaining something in English then you’re invoking and reliant on the readers common sense and intuition to do the work in your explanation. E.g a pipe is used to smoke tobacco. Pipe. Usage. Smoking. Tobacco. It’s left to the reader to define, disambiguate and on that basis accept. Contrast to: a pipe is used for transporting water.