4 ms·
>>In theory maths should be able to be broken down to its basic components and be proven to be all true, or if something is false, then the whole thing collapse
by kamaal 1y ago
>>In theory maths should be able to be broken down to its basic components and be proven to be all true, or if something is false, then the whole thing collapses.
>>But in practice things like this become so complex that it becomes a matter of conviction, influenced by things like ego.
Isn't this like doing a bunch of AND , OR operations?
How does ego become a factor here? Either an expression evaluates to true or false. There are only two outcomes, why is there a confusion here.
- bubblyworld 1y agoThat's true, but in practice mathematicians rarely check a proof to that level of detail. In fact, they rarely write a proof at that level of detail. There just isn't enough time to do that for every result/review, so people take shortcuts. Most of the time it's fine because trained mathematicians take good shortcuts, but sometimes things slip through.