[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]

*To*: bigelowp@juno.com, dinosaur@usc.edu*Subject*: Re: WAS-- Re: Hanson 2006, Mortimer, Baeker response*From*: Andreas Johansson <andreasj@gmail.com>*Date*: Sat, 24 Jun 2006 01:09:07 +0200*In-reply-to*: <20060623.140656.-921371.1.bigelowp@juno.com>*References*: <20060623.140656.-921371.1.bigelowp@juno.com>*Reply-to*: andreasj@gmail.com*Sender*: owner-DINOSAUR@usc.edu

On Fri, 23 Jun 2006 22:23:56 +0200 Andreas Johansson <andreasj@gmail.com> writes: > On 6/23/06, Phil Bigelow <bigelowp@juno.com> wrote: > > > > The construction, testing, and potential falsification of > mathematical > > theorems and mathematical proofs follows the scientific method, so > I > > don't see why it isn't a science, too. > > Except theorems aren't constructed, tested and falsified that way. > A > theorem isn't a best explanation of data; it's something that's, > given > the axioms, is *true*.

Have mathematical theorems ever been declared to be "true", but later falsified

Well, people have certainly asserted as theorems things that have subsequently be shown to be wrong, but according to standard interpretation this means they never were theorems.

or put into a category of uncertainty by either another theorem

If a theorem contradicts another, you don't get either or both put into uncertainty - the whole structure comes crashing down, because the axioms are inconsistent with one another.

or because one of the axioms doesn't always follow the theorem?

I have no idea what this is supposed to mean.

-- Andreas Johansson

Why can't you be a non-conformist just like everybody else?

**References**:**Re: WAS-- Re: Hanson 2006, Mortimer, Baeker response***From:*Phil Bigelow <bigelowp@juno.com>

- Prev by Date:
**Re: WAS-- Re: Hanson 2006, Mortimer, Baeker response** - Next by Date:
**Re: WAS-- Re: Hanson 2006, Mortimer, Baeker response** - Previous by thread:
**Re: WAS-- Re: Hanson 2006, Mortimer, Baeker response** - Next by thread:
**Re: WAS-- Re: Hanson 2006, Mortimer, Baeker response** - Indexes: