Explore >> Select a destination
|
You are here 
|
existentialtype.wordpress.com | ||
| | | | |
math.andrej.com
|
|
| | | | | [AI summary] The discussion revolves around the philosophical and methodological pluralism in mathematics, emphasizing that mathematics is a human-made construct with historical developments rather than an absolute, universal truth. Key points include the idea that different mathematical frameworks (e.g., classical vs. intuitionistic logic, paraconsistent logic) represent distinct 'worlds' of mathematics, each with its own standards and validity. The conversation highlights the importance of acknowledging these pluralistic perspectives without assuming a single, unifying foundation. It also touches on the role of context, the evolution of mathematical concepts, and the implications of relativism for the future of mathematics. The discussion underscores that ... | |
| | | | |
www.jeremykun.com
|
|
| | | | | For those who aren't regular readers: as a followup to this post, there are four posts detailing the basic four methods of proof, with intentions to detail some more advanced proof techniques in the future. You can find them on this blog's primers page. Do you really want to get better at mathematics? Remember when you first learned how to program? I do. I spent two years experimenting with Java programs on my own in high school. | |
| | | | |
rjlipton.com
|
|
| | | | | A new way to write mathematics Vladimir Voevodsky won the Fields Medal in 2002 for his work on homotopy theory of algebraic varieties. Using his pioneering methods he proved, among many other things, a deep conjecture of John Milnor, that had been open for decades. Today I want to talk about, no, rant about, a... | |
| | | | |
existentialtype.wordpress.com
|
|
| | | It is well-known that constructivists renounce "proof by contradiction", and that classicists scoff at the critique. "Those constructivists," the criticismgoes, "want to rule out proofs by contradiction. How absurd! Look, Pythagoras showed that the square root of two is irrational by deriving a contradiction from the assumption that it is rational. There is nothing wrong... | ||
