The dogma that mathematical proofs could, in principle, be turned into logical proofs remains a conjecture; it is not feasible in practice. Existing proof systems are not up to the job; can they be beefed up sufficiently? Research community disconnect!https://xenaproject.wordpress.com/2020/02/09/where-is-the-fashionable-mathematics/ …
-
Show this thread
-
Mathematicians aren’t interested in computer proof systems because they aren’t (yet) useful in practice. Proof system people don’t care about “real” math because… it’s too hard? (h/t
@JohnDCook for OP)3 replies 0 retweets 4 likesShow this thread -
Resonates with
@michael_nielsen &@andy_matuschak’s point that “tools for thinking” have to be driven by the needs of expert professional users, not someone’s appealing theory of education or cognition or philosophy of math or something3 replies 3 retweets 12 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @Meaningness @JohnDCook and
This is just "skin in the game" no?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
The question, again and again, is not "how can we reason this from first principles" but "what filters bring the most correct/useful result to the top."
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.