4 ms·
I look at math the same way as at physics, where rigorous proofs are not possible. The difference only matters to the few people who do it professionally. I kn
by sobriquet9 4y ago
I look at math the same way as at physics, where rigorous proofs are not possible. The difference only matters to the few people who do it professionally.
I know I can dig deeper all the way down to axioms if I choose so, but realistically there is not enough time for me to learn all of the underlying math. At most, I can occasionally check if the results are consistent and match reality.
- jfengel 4y agoIt seems like the kind of thing that's not really worth having an opinion on. As you say, the difference only amounts to a few people -- but for those few people, they can draw the distinction in a rigorous fashion. If you're trying to push it all the way to epistemology, then even the most trivial proof doesn't really work. "A, A->B, therefore B" could be wrong because you have only your brain to inspect it. And computers, and other logicians, but they could all be glitchy. Even "Assume A, therefore A" could be wrong. This is a valid line of reasoning, but if one wants to follow it, it would seem more useful to apply it to trivial proofs rather than get bogged down in a problem people have a weirdly difficult time accepting. I'd kinda like somebody to investigate the properties of proofs that non-mathematicians feel compelled to have an opinion in, though.
- constantcrying 4y ago>where rigorous proofs are not possible. Absurd. >I know I can dig deeper all the way down to axioms if I choose so, but realistically there is not enough time for me to learn all of the underlying math. So proofs are impossible because you refuse to learn math? What.
- sobriquet9 4y ago> Absurd. Show me the proof of Newton's laws of motion.