3 ms·

Isn't how formal or rigorous something is just a social convention? Grammer Nazi's used to make online speech be formal with perfect rigor. Isn't it all relativ

• chongli 2y ago
  No. That's the colloquial definition of formal. In mathematics, the word formal refers to something more specific: one or more statements written using a set of symbols which have fully-defined rules for mechanically transforming them into another form. A formal proof is then one which proceeds by a series of these mechanical steps beginning with one or more premises and ending with a conclusion (or goal).
  • koolala 2y ago
    Both are a formality based on whats in fashion. I like the Axiom of Choice and not taking Math or words as literal or biblical truth.
    • deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    • chongli 2y ago
      If you're a formalist in philosophy of math, then math is neither true nor false, it's merely a bunch of meaningless symbols you transform via mechanical rules.
• nyssos 2y ago
  To an extent. A truly completely formal proof, as in symbol manipulation according to the rules of some formal system, no. It's valid or it isn't. But no one actually works like this. There are varying degrees of "semiformality" and what is and isn't acceptable is ultimately a convention, and varies between subfields - but even the laxest mathematicians are still about as careful as the most rigorous physicists.