When is a proof? (A**-Clown, Double Barf Bag ALert, CODE RED)

Mathematics Association of America ^ | 1 June 2003 | Keith Devlin

[Allan]

In order to be a mathematician it is necessary
though not sufficient
to suffer from a psychological disorder
which results in a total inability to communicate with normal human beings
in words they can understand.

[Robert A Cook PE]

So could this mathematician ever prove (to my satisfaction) that pi doesn't repeat?

.....

Interesting that he (the original writer) is bringing politics in as a immediate criticism of the conservative groups he apparently despises.

[Poohbah]

SKYBIRD SKYBIRD DO NOT ANSWER

SKYBIRD SKYBIRD DO NOT ANSWER

EMERGENCY ACTION MESSAGE FOLLOWS

COMMAND WORD: COTTONMOUTH
DESIGNATOR: JERICHO
DAY WORD: TRINITY

ZOT PER SIOP OPTION TWO ONE ZEBRA "GRAND TOUR"

AUTHENTICATOR: VIKING KITTENS ARE OUR OVERLORDS

EMERGENCY ACTION MESSAGE ENDS

BT



NNNN

[ShadowDancer]

What's to enjoy?

[Congressman Billybob]

Here's a Euclidean Proof for you:

This author is a mathematician.

Based both on his occupation, and the evidence of this article, he knows diddly squat about politics.

Therefore, all of his references to "left" and "right" should be ignored, exactly as one of the proverbial monkeys should be ignored, when he typed out the opening lines of "Hamlet."

Quod Erat Demonstrum, or in its short form, Q.E.D.

Congressman Billybob

Click here, then click the blue CFR button, to join the anti-CFR effort (or visit the "Hugh & Series, Critical & Pulled by JimRob" thread). Don't delay. Do it now.

[Congressman Billybob]

Post Script: The mathematician/author uses the words "Right" and "Left" as if they had some objective meaning, and therefore could be used in any analysis leading to a "proof." Since he is way outside his field, odds are he does not know that these labels descend from where various people sat, on a French tennis court in 1791.

That source does not quite qualify as a srandard of measurement of something else, like the standard meter or the atomic clock, now does it? All the author is demonstrating is that he has the standard academic political bias, while writing on a totally different subject. Does he believe that if he shows he's "on the correct wave length" that his academic colleagues will cut him some slack on the legitimacy of the discussions of mathematics. Could that be what's going on here?

John / Billybob

[sauropod]

No.

[sauropod]

The answer to Boldevitch's question is, of course, 42.

[stands2reason]

If 42 is the answer, then what is the question?

[sauropod]

"What is the meaning of Life?" - Hitchhiker's guide to the Universe.

[stands2reason]

Wow.


Now I know why you have groupies. :-)

[Mitchell]

I thought this article made sense :-).

But it's not about a deep question of mathematical philosophy, it's about a practical question. How can mathematical proofs be conveyed in a way that the details can be checked? Or maybe: how can mathematical proofs be written in a way that the details can be checked by an automated proof checker?

By the way, Devlin is a well-known set theorist. He also has an extinct opossum named after him.

[RightWingAtheist]

Where does Derbyshire discuss this? I don't remember it appearing in one of his NRO columns, but I sure would love to read his take!.

[RightWingAtheist]

I noticed that. He inadverantly makes out all of the physical sciences as being "right wing," regardless of the diversity of political viewpoints among their practioniers

[weegee]

(a) Nothing is better than a good command of the English language.
(b) A college degree is better than nothing.

From (a) and (b) we get:
A college degree is better than a good command of the English language.

[50sDad]

A proof is when you make a fool of yourself at the Security Council you show that others should rule the country.

Freekin foreigners.

[Allan]

The article is somewhat interesting
but this 'left-wing' 'right-wing' business is idiotic.
He's trying to be cute but it makes him look like an idiot.
Mathematicians shouldn't attempt humour or wit
they are not good at it
because they are essentially humourless.

[Mitchell]

On the contrary, I think he is serious. People are wrapped up in politics here (well, it's FR, so I can't really be surprised at that :-), but this article isn't about politics, in spite of his use of the phrases "right-wing" and "left-wing".

I read Devlin's right-wing/left-wing analogy as being motivated not so much by politics as by the theory of morality -- absolute morality vs. moral relativism.

This metaphor makes sense in the context of his article.

I still think that the issue he talks about is really a technical matter of how to formulate proofs so that they can be checked easily, whether by a person or by an automated proof-checker.

[moni kerr]

I thought it was rather simply stated. In mathematics, one test for a proof is it's logical validity (the 'right wing'definition). The other, 'left wing' proof is concensus. The first is rational, the second is fallacious. Citing popular opinion is not a valid test for truthfulness.

However, he leaves out another test; is it empirically verifiable. Most 'right wingers' deal with the world as it is whereas most left wingers tend to deal with the world as they want it to be. Leftist theories can be quite logical although I find that they most often skip the empirical test.