[FOM] on harvey friedman's "number theorists" (4 Apr).
friedman at math.ohio-state.edu
Fri Apr 7 19:43:10 EDT 2006
On 4/7/06 3:33 PM, "Gabriel Stolzenberg" <gstolzen at math.bu.edu> wrote:
> I'm surprised that you don't tell us how this interest is manifested
> mathematically. Isn't that important? I'd like to see some of the work
> that he did on questions of this kind.
He is one of the three people I contacted, and I haven't yet heard from any
three. I have to admit that I am becoming pessimistic about hearing from
My impression is that most of the leading senior number theorists have
published bounds either improving previous bounds or establishing a bound
where no bound previously existed. Also this particular leading senior
number theorist did publish on logical issues associated with number theory,
including, at least tangentially, bounds.
>> Easy. It is well accepted among many, perhaps most, leading
>> mathematicians in the world that bounds are intrinsically
>> interesting, and an important consideration in classical
>> mathematics. Period.
> If being fascinated with something is a way of being intrinsically
> interested in it (and maybe even the same) then it seems that you now
> agree with what I said near the beginning of this exchange.
> However, unless you mean to claim that EVERY bound is intrinsically
> interesting/fascinating (and "an important consideration in classical
> math"), which I'm sure you don't, UNQUALIFIED statements about bounds,
> like yours above, are out of order.
The mere existence of a an effective bound for a Pi03 is of intrinsic
interest, and the interest to number theorists increases as the bounds get
lower and lower.
> As I understand it, we're supposed to be talking about a PARTICULAR
> KIND of case, the one that you formulated: a classical existence proof
> but either no constructive one or they're all are grotesque.
In this exchange, I was concentrating solely on statements of the form
(forall n)(therexists m)(forall r)(P(n,m,r))
where P(n,m,r) is innocent. And where there is a classical proof of this
statement, but where it is not known if it is recursively true. As a
consequence, it would not be known whether it is constructively provable
(under all proposed interpretations of constructivity).
> Is your number theorist intrinsically interested in this kind of
> case? If he is, then, to restate what I asked above, how does he
> pursue this interest?
When and if I get responses, I will ask.
>> In fact, we both should hope that I am correct. For the only
>> detectable interest I sense in the mathematics community in
>> constructivity is EXACTLY where it mathematically amounts to bounds.
> Harvey, the last thing I want is for the classical mathematical
> community to have an interest in constructivity.
> If you want to know why, I'll try to explain. But to understand,
> you'll have to be willing to bracket some of your beliefs about the
> constructivist project in order to give what I say a proper hearing.
I'm all ears.
> Finally, it may surprise you to hear that there is a substantial
> body of constructive math that the math community admires and builds
> upon for reasons that have almost nothing to do with bounds. However,
> classical mathematicians can't tell that it's constructive math, so
> this is not an expression of an interest in constructivity.
I'm all ears.
More information about the FOM