Live data from Hacker News

Doing Mathematics Differently

inference-review.com

71–73 of 73 posts

Re: Doing Mathematics Differently

#71
post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Formal mathematics has no concept of absolute truth" This is false. The axioms don't have to be true. You can still talk about their implications in absolute terms. "Assuming a=0 implies a=0" is absolutely true. Regardless of whether a actually is 0.

"The axioms don't have to be true." No, not at all. Axioms are better thought of as universally accepted truths which everything else depends on. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_atomism

Acioms are only viewed as true because they are defined as such.

It's obvious when applying math to real world. If you're talking about objects on Earth surface, for example, at first Euclid's geometry will get you good results, because objects you're working with can be assumed to fulfill it's axioms. However, when your scale gets bigger, you'll have apply a more complicated geometry apparatus.

Easiest analogy about axioms is interface in software engineering: you don't care what the object really is, but as long as it shows certain properties, you can prove theorems about it. Which will be true for any objects with these properties, and as true as exactly these properties are fulfilled by the real life object.

Re: Doing Mathematics Differently

#72
post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you followed Gödel's proof in detail? I know Fields medalists who like to speculate about Gödel, but haven't read Russell and Whiteheads Principia Mathematica (PM). Gödel's system is PM, but PM is quite an impossible read. Most of this discussed has been discussed over 30 years between 1900-1930. By the way Turing also builds on PM in his on computable numbers paper. PM is like a compiler before there were compi…

This is the crankiest comment I've seen on HN in a while. You "know Fields medalists"? Right. You think that Pricipia Mathematica is the source of all truth in mathematics? Wrong. Most mathematicians working on foundational questions start out by learning Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory, which is well-understood, and avoids several difficulties that Russel had. While few people have read PM, it remains important because…

[deleted]

Re: Doing Mathematics Differently

#73
post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This seems to be a technical objection that dodges the meat of the parent's comment. In what sense is it true that a given theorem follows from a given set of axioms and a given choice of inference rules?

Umm. I've been of the understanding that we never change the inference rules, Can you point to some branch of mathematics that involves a change of inference rules?

At my level of understanding, it seems a reasonable characterization of intuitionistic logic to say that it operates with a more restricted set of inference rules. It was the parent who made the stronger claim about differences here, and they speak a bit more to the topic in nearby comments.
Post reply on HN