Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 916,386 Year: 3,643/9,624 Month: 514/974 Week: 127/276 Day: 1/23 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Absolute proof a scarce commodity, even in math
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3944
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 1 of 2 (75125)
12-25-2003 3:28 PM


From Discover, January 2004, p. 36.
quote:
Mathematicians Face Uncertainty
This will surely be remembered as the year mathematicians finally had to agree that their prized notion of absolute proof is an unattainable idealan excellent goal to strive for, but achievable only in relatively simple cases. Moreover, they were forced to make this adjustment under the harsh glare of the media, following three major news stories about so-called mathematical proofs.
Early in the year, American mathematician Daniel Goldston and his Turkish colleague Cem Yildirim announced a proof of the twin prime conjecture, which says there are an infinite number of prime numbers differing by two, such as 3 and 5, or 11 and 13. Although experts around the world initially agreed that the new proof was correct, a few weeks later an insurmountable error was discovered.
The above is a trucated version, from Discover Financial Services
A full, online version is available free, if you are a Discover subscriber. You just have to register as such.
I'll get this much up now. I'll try to follow up with a bit more later.
Moose
ps: The "Discover's Guide to the Top 100 Science Stories of 2003" index page can be found at Discover Financial Services

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Rrhain, posted 12-26-2003 8:29 AM Minnemooseus has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 2 of 2 (75183)
12-26-2003 8:29 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Minnemooseus
12-25-2003 3:28 PM


I'm a bit confused about the topic. It made me think that someone had managed to extend the Incompleteness Theorems to a lower level.
And the introductory paragraph is unacceptable. It is confusing the fundamental concept of proof with the human-based process of presenting a proof. It seems to have been written solely for shock value.
If there is a proof of twin primes, then it exists whether or not a person makes a mistake in presenting it. When the proof of Fermat's Greater Theorem was first presented, it also had a flaw. But they found it, retracted the proof, fixed it, and represented it. The particular proof of twin primes may not be as amenable to adjustment, but that is no reason to make it seem as if the situation is hopeless.
------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Minnemooseus, posted 12-25-2003 3:28 PM Minnemooseus has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024