At least I am certainly not going to make the same mistake.
All the maths proofs I make to go into my book (yet-to-be published) will be all written so the average layperson will have no difficulty understanding them thus maths experts would certainly understand them!
No point in making a proof expressed such that nobody, not even the experts, understands it! A proof that apparently cannot be verified as being proof would completely defeat the whole point of a proof!
The main type of proof I will use in my book will be proof by contradiction, which is a type of proof that is actually very easy even for the maths naive to understand and I will explain each in plain English as well as mathematically.
Originally posted by @humyDo you or do you not think that person A can discover
At least I am certainly not going to make the same mistake.
All the maths proofs I make to go into my book (yet-to-be published) will be all written so the average layperson will have no difficulty understanding them thus maths experts would certainly understand them!
No point in making a proof expressed such that nobody, not even the experts, understands it ...[text shortened]... he maths naive to understand and I will explain each in plain English as well as mathematically.
a mathematical proof that is incomprehensible to person B?
If no then you think that all abstract theorems are understandable
by the whole population. I think the evidence is against this.
If yes then you can continue applying this to diminishing
populations such that eventually there is nobody else to
understand the proof.
1 edit
Originally posted by @wolfgang59
Do you or do you not think that person A can discover
a mathematical proof that is incomprehensible to person B?
If no then you think that all abstract theorems are understandable
by the whole population. I think the evidence is against this.
If yes then you can continue applying this to diminishing
populations such that eventually there is nobody else to
understand the proof.
Do you or do you not think that person A can discover
a mathematical proof that is incomprehensible to person B?
of cause that is possible.
Thankfully, all my proofs just happen to be extremely easy to understand.
If yes then you can continue applying this to diminishing
populations such that eventually there is nobody else to
understand the proof.
What use does a proof have if nobody else can understand it?
It may have only rather limit personal use to the one person that understands it who produced it but still be completely useless to everyone else because nobody else would rationally know it is valid if nobody else can understand it thus everyone else would only have the word of the person that produced it that it is valid and that wouldn't be adequate. I think there really needs to be at least one other intelligent and generally trusted maths-expert person (or perhaps even just a computer or even an AI checking the proof! That has on the extremely rare occasion already happened in the past! ) that independently has studied it and says, yes, that proof is valid, before everyone else can rationally 'know' it is valid.
- Joined
- 20 May 17
- Moves
- 20504
Originally posted by @sonhousedon't forget about Ramanujan and the Akashic records !!
http://www.sciencealert.com/nightmarish-500-page-math-proof-even-experts-can-t-understand-about-published-shinichi-mochizuki
This paper has been analysed for years with no consenous.
I wonder if Terence Tao has had a look?
Originally posted by @wolfgang59But who will believe it?
Do you or do you not think that person A can discover
a mathematical proof that is incomprehensible to person B?
If no then you think that all abstract theorems are understandable
by the whole population. I think the evidence is against this.
If yes then you can continue applying this to diminishing
populations such that eventually there is nobody else to
understand the proof.
3 edits
Originally posted by @handyandyOh...So you’re saying he was white?
Of course not. He was a rapist.