[FOM] Mathematics and formalizability
Martin Davis
martin at eipye.com
Fri Jul 30 17:51:05 EDT 2004
At 12:21 PM 7/30/2004, Vladik Kreinovich wrote:
>There are two different notions of what mathematics is.
>
>We mathematicians usually define mathematics by the level of rigor, while
>others define mathematics by objects of study: if it is about abstract
>mathematical objects, it is mathematics, eevn if there is no rigor.
>
>Mathematicians all (99% probably) agree that mathematics is something that is
>formal or at least formalizable.
This narrow approach flies in the face of history and mathematical
practice. Most mathematicians aim for "rigor" but give little if any
thought to formal systems. Rigor (and ultimately formalizability) can be
regarded as goals, but that's all. And as E.T. Bell once remarked
"Sufficient unto the day is the rigor thereof".
Here are some examples of mathematical activity that don't meet Vladik's
requirements;
1. Euler sums 1/n^2 to pi^2/6 by a heuristic argument factoring the power
series for sine as though it were a polynomial and using the relation
between symmetric functions of the roots of a polynomial and its coefficients.
2. Italian algebraic geometry
3. Heaviside operator calculus
Martin
More information about the FOM
mailing list