Got Homework?
Connect with other students for help. It's a free community.
Here's the question you clicked on:
 0 viewing

This Question is Closed

UsukiDollBest ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.0
when there's no solution or when the proof doesn't make sense. That's uh my guess.
 one year ago

zzr0ck3rBest ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.0
this is a contradiction a^a thus a mathematical proof will never not be a proof.
 one year ago

estudierBest ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.3
False premise, true conclusion?
 one year ago

miteshchvmBest ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.0
when the statement is an axiom
 one year ago

estudierBest ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.3
If you can prove an axiom, it isn't an axiom....
 one year ago

zzr0ck3rBest ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.0
this is tantamount to asking when is 2 not equal to 2
 one year ago

zzr0ck3rBest ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.0
either way, something cant be both true and false at the same time, and this is what the question asks
 one year ago

UnkleRhaukusBest ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.0
when you are proving something is false
 one year ago

estudierBest ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.3
When it is a valid proof but not yet accepted by the mathematical community. Or accepted as valid but wrongly.
 one year ago

zzr0ck3rBest ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.0
am I reading this question wrong? anyone? explain why, what I'm saying, is not the only logical answer?
 one year ago

estudierBest ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.3
Logically, p and not p is a bad thing (obviously) I am sure that is not the intention behind the question.....(maybe)
 one year ago

zzr0ck3rBest ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.0
hmm, I disagree. I think if someone is just learning about proofs... a question involving a contradiction seems like an obvious one to ask a student.
 one year ago

estudierBest ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.3
A proof not yet 100% accepted by the mathematical community..
 one year ago

badreferencesBest ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.1
Bertrand Russell's "Principia Mathematica" is a relevant book. It deals with the construction of what a mathematical proof is. Mathematical proofs are constructed using objects, maps, and equivalences. Maps are relationships between objects. Objects are defined to have properties. Equivalences are to determine what we can say are the "same". A contradiction usually doesn't pass under mathematics, but it works in fuzzy logic and paraconsistent mathematics. (For a famous example, Godel's incompleteness theorems on the extendability of arithmetic axioms.) So, in short, what passes as a mathematical proof is technically what mathematicians have agreed on to make sense. The equivalences might have Platonic existence outside of this agreement, in which case the mathematicians have made a mistake; but in the end, instrumentally it is the intuition that decides what can be called the same. But this doesn't mean that you can just run around making any proof you want. There is still a lot of technical subtlety, and as you learn mathematics you will create ad hoc modifiers to what constitutes a good proof. You will have different levels of rigor for different kinds of proofs, because in the end, we're looking for math to be intellectually useful. But, in short, if you're given that \(A=B\), a strong heuristic is that any map on \(A\to C(A)\) should also map as \(B\to C(B)\). And by "strong heuristic", I mean it is right in virtually every scenario except for the most contrived, philosophically demanding ones.
 one year ago

estudierBest ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.3
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Closepacking_of_equal_spheres
 one year ago

zzr0ck3rBest ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.0
If it is not accepted by the Mathematical community, it is not a proof, so something cant be a proof unless its accepted by the mathematical community. So we still have a contradiction, even by your definition...
 one year ago

badreferencesBest ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.1
An addendum, the contradiction paradox is usually a good way of determining falsehood, but as has been demonstrating by the "quantum eraser" experiment http://grad.physics.sunysb.edu/~amarch/ you need to be careful about what constitutes a contradiction. @zzr0ck3r You aren't reading what I wrote clearly enough.
 one year ago

estudierBest ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.3
Hum... a proof has no independant (ie logical) existance?
 one year ago

badreferencesBest ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.1
@estudier We call that Platonic existence. It might, but this is up to a lot of debate.
 one year ago

badreferencesBest ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.1
Bertrand Russell, Plato, and many modern mathematicians believe it does, but in a form we don't know of yet. Wittgenstein, Hume, Kant, and the peerless mathematician Godel (along with plenty, but not the majority, of Ivy mathematicians) believe that it doesn't.
 one year ago

estudierBest ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.3
I don't agree that this is a case of Platonistic argument (which I don't subscribe to).
 one year ago

badreferencesBest ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.1
Go on? Platonic existence is defined as something that can be objectively verified in the most extreme of cases no matter what (generally, I'm a bit rusty). This seems to me to be a clear cut case of what constitutes a proof. I won't press my own views, I'm just giving names to read. What they have to say is much better than what I do.
 one year ago

estudierBest ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.3
A proof is a logical binding together of possibly Platonic mathematical objects but not such an object itself.
 one year ago

zzr0ck3rBest ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.0
Well, I don't think I can pretend to know enough about quantum theory to understand what this all means, but I have a new answer. A proof is not a proof when know one is there to witness the proof.
 one year ago

zzr0ck3rBest ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.0
If it is a very small proof...
 one year ago

estudierBest ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.3
One hand clapping.....
 one year ago

badreferencesBest ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.1
This is true, but a proof is also constrained by axioms, which are maps.
 one year ago

estudierBest ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.3
@nincompoop Why are you deleting your posts?
 one year ago

badreferencesBest ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.1
Of course, a disclaimer is that I'm not a philosopher, and this is veering very close to philosophy, so I might've just been misinterpreting all the books I've read. :P
 one year ago

zzr0ck3rBest ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.0
This is only philosophy. :)
 one year ago

UnkleRhaukusBest ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.0
is an incomplete proof a proof?
 one year ago

jhonyy9Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.0
so i like answering your question with an oder question : when a thesis is not a thesis ? so just till not is proven ,because till not get an accepted proof so till then is just a conjecture this is OK ?
 one year ago
See more questions >>>
Your question is ready. Sign up for free to start getting answers.
spraguer
(Moderator)
5
→ View Detailed Profile
is replying to Can someone tell me what button the professor is hitting...
23
 Teamwork 19 Teammate
 Problem Solving 19 Hero
 Engagement 19 Mad Hatter
 You have blocked this person.
 ✔ You're a fan Checking fan status...
Thanks for being so helpful in mathematics. If you are getting quality help, make sure you spread the word about OpenStudy.