Re: I agree with gödel and matheyasevich : Mathematics is too hard for mathemat
- From: bit188 <mariana@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2007 15:41:55 -0700
On Jun 20, 3:18 pm, tommy1729 <tommy1...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
btw wich unproven discoveries are you talking about ???
DID RIEMANN NEED EVIDENCE FOR HIS HYPOTHESE ???
now he did not !!! its famous without proof
just as fermats last theorem before it was solved
and after it was solved.
tommy1729
"Fame" isn't the point. If you think it is, then you shouldn't be
doing mathematics.
And proof IS neccesary; you can't just go off of intuition. Proof sets
mathematics on a firm foundation -- this way, there is no room for
doubt, and we can assure ourselves that a statement is, in fact, true.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- References:
- Prev by Date: Re: Separation,Power and Countability.
- Next by Date: Re: Question about the Kleisli comparison functor
- Previous by thread: Re: I agree with gödel and matheyasevich : Mathematics is too hard for mathemat
- Next by thread: Re: I agree with gödel and matheyasevich : Mathematics is too hard for mathemat
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|