Re: Am I a crank?
- From: Virgil <virgil@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2006 12:20:55 -0600
In article <1157024892.614341.149030@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
schoenfeld.one@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
Lester Zick wrote:
On 30 Aug 2006 05:01:52 -0700, schoenfeld.one@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
Han de Bruijn wrote:
schoenfeld.one@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
Then there is no experiementation. Mathematics is not an experimental
science, it is not even a science. The principle of falsifiability does
not apply.
Any even number > 2 is the sum of two prime numbers. Now suppose that I
find just _one_ huge number for which this (well-known) conjecture does
_not_ hold. By mere number crunching. Isn't that an application of the
"principle of falsifiability" to mathematics?
Falsifiability does not _need_ to apply in mathematics. In math,
statements can be true without their being a proof of it being true.
Likewise, they can be false.
Except apparently for definitions.
Definitions can be false too (i.e. "Let x be an even odd").
That definition is not false, as it does not say that any such thing
exists. Nor is it true. It is merely impossible to fulfill.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Am I a crank?
- From: Lester Zick
- Re: Am I a crank?
- References:
- Re: Am I a crank?
- From: Jeremy Boden
- Re: Am I a crank?
- From: John Schutkeker
- Re: Am I a crank?
- From: Jesse F. Hughes
- Re: Am I a crank?
- From: Han de Bruijn
- Re: Am I a crank?
- From: schoenfeld . one
- Re: Am I a crank?
- From: Han de Bruijn
- Re: Am I a crank?
- From: schoenfeld . one
- Re: Am I a crank?
- From: Han de Bruijn
- Re: Am I a crank?
- From: schoenfeld . one
- Re: Am I a crank?
- From: Lester Zick
- Re: Am I a crank?
- From: schoenfeld . one
- Re: Am I a crank?
- Prev by Date: Re: Common divisor, smaller than a delta
- Next by Date: Re: Statistical modeling of novel chemical systems( AKA Chemist with lots of stats questions)
- Previous by thread: Re: Am I a crank?
- Next by thread: Re: Am I a crank?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|