Re: Well Ordering the Reals

Tony Orlow says...

>Actually, often I have responded with a precise explanation of the flaw in
>their logical arguments, or a clarification of what my idea is when it's
>misunderstood.

You don't give any indication of knowing what the phrases
"precise explanation" or "logical argument" mean. You've
never provided either one.

You say that that's because *we* don't understand. But the
whole point of mathematical rigor is that whether an argument
is rigorous or not is an *objective* fact. If it's a rigorous
argument, it can (in principle, anyway) be expanded into a
formal proof that can be unambiguously checked for correctness.
The truth of the axioms are not checkable, but the validity of
the proof from those axioms is checkable.

--
Daryl McCullough
Ithaca, NY

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: What is a proof, exactly?
    ... >> In Norm Megill's formalization of set theory in Metamath, a formal proof ... The complete proof of a theorem all the way back to axioms can be ... to try to find the longest path back to an ... interesting and important set theory results along the way. ...
    (sci.logic)
  • Re: Definition of Mathematics and Above
    ... I allow that one may have a notion of informal axioms for informal ... can't be meaningful non-axiomatic mathematics. ... The high level summary of the purported ZFC proof that nobody is able ... each line of some formal proof of the theorem ...
    (sci.logic)
  • Re: Definition of Mathematics and Above
    ... I allow that one may have a notion of informal axioms for informal ... can't be meaningful non-axiomatic mathematics. ... The high level summary of the purported ZFC proof that nobody is able ... each line of some formal proof of the theorem is translated ...
    (sci.logic)
  • Re: Godel proved maths inconsistent not incompleteness theorem
    ... We say we have a formal proof: you say can I see it. ... proof (according to the standard meaning in mathematics). ... that you want not only a formalized proof, but also the natural language ... we are not using the axioms of Euclid. ...
    (sci.logic)