/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.3780647]

http://projectwordsworth.com/the-paradox-of-the-proof/
>O’Neil, however, holds Mochizuki accountable, saying that his refusal to cooperate places an unfair burden on his colleagues.
>“You don’t get to say you’ve proved something if you haven’t explained it,” she says. “A proof is a social construct. If the community doesn’t understand it, you haven’t done your job.”
Do you agree with this? Are mathematical proofs social constructs?

[Anonymous No.3780657]

>>3780647

>If the community doesn’t understand it, you haven’t done your job

Are you kidding me?

Maybe in a broader, societal sense, laws that cannot be understood in any possible way could fall under this clause, but a valid scientific proof? No. Proof papers are based in logic, and using logic can be interpreted exactly how the writer intends. There's no room for error.

O'Neil is in the wrong, you can't call proofs social constructs because they're accounted for using plain logic.

[Anonymous No.3780661]

>>3780647
In accordance with mathematical fictionalism I suppose they are. It's a pretty popular viewpoint.

[Tallis !!DxrlCMGAS2J No.3780693]

>>3780647
I think so, since they are based on topos of subjects agreeing to a set of semantic mutually exclusive macrostructures to come to a common acceptation of what logic or proof means.

I have to warn everyone that I won't be able to defend this in English, though.

[Anonymous No.3780698]

>>3780693
>post structuralist babble
sage, hide and report

[Anonymous No.3780701]

Of course they are constructs, but she is being lazy with her sweeping statement calling them 'social.'