/sci/ - Science & Math

>>12674830
Mathematical rigor is a fanclub that agrees to respect one person or another's opinion about that level of rigor which is said to be sufficiently rigorous. Opinions are subjective and not objective. An absolute standard of rigor would be objective necessarily. For this reason, there does not exist absolute rigor and everything is framed in terms of sufficient rigor. One can always move the bar of what rigor is to say, "No this other problem that was invented only to show an insufficiency of your thing is the real standard of rigor!" This is what Wildberger is always harping on without mentioning that it is only his opinion that makes the points he raises conflict with rigor. If there were some absolute standard of rigor, then Wildberger could show that it is not met but since rigor is 100% subjective, Wildberger can only say that the issues he identifies are his opinion of rigor even though most other people use a different standard of *sufficient* rigor. I criticize Wildberger because he acts like there is some objective standard of rigor to which he compares things, but there is not.

For instance, who knows of a source that says what the definition of being rigorous is? There is no source. It's always just someone's opinion and it's always just the opinion of other people to say, "OMG, So and So's balls are smart! If he says something is rigorous then it is and if he says it's not then it's not. Also, let's all make fun of Euler now and say he wasn't rigorous! Also, Riemann wasn't rigorous. No one except us is rigorous!" All these people who say, "Since you didn't define 'define' you're not rigorous," never themselves define the rigor which they cite.

Subjective rigor has some value because these people's opinions tend to be good opinions but when mental midgets frame "rigor" as if it was some objective and well-defined standard, they reveal themselves as fools. Sufficient rigor is an opinion and the consensus opinion is in constant flux.