Glen, You have made some interesting points. I don't deny that forming a proof involves invention and symbol manipulation. I also agree that mathematical truth is different from scientific truth. I now think the core question is whether a proof, according to the usual rules of symbol manipulation, represents a strong argument for the truth of the statement that is claimed to have been proven. (While, before reading your comments, my objections to W's statements were more a matter of whether "discovery" or "invention" is the better choice of a word to describe what is happening.) In other words, I see your interpretation of Wittgenstein's statements as his way of saying that mathematical argument does not do a good or reliable job of establishing truth. Am I characterizing your position correctly?
John ________________________________________ From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of glen e. p. ropella [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, October 07, 2008 2:21 PM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Wittgenstein Thus spake John F. Kennison circa 10/07/2008 10:53 AM: > Okay, suppose someone else simply entered some numbers in a Suduko > grid and said, "I wonder whether there is any solution that > incorporates these numbers, and, if there is a solution, is it > unique?" I concede that the person who did this invented the problem. > But if I prove that there is a solution and that it is unique, I > haven't invented that fact as that fact was implicit in the original > question, but I have discovered that the fact was implicit, have I > not? Well, what you're saying depends on your usage of your words, particularly the words "fact", "implicit", and "discover". But to answer as directly as possible, all you did was transform something some other person invented. So, yes, you invented the first sentence (the solution to the puzzle). And you invented the second sentence (the statement that the solution is unique). And you invented the string of sentences that "proves" the two previous sentences. The puzzle creator did not explicitly invent those two sentences or the string of sentences that constructs the proof. It's just like folding a piece of paper. Someone hands you a piece of paper and you fold it into an origami swan. Did you _discover_ the swan? Or did you invent the swan? I don't intend to play around with the definitions of words. But playing around with words is a _great_ demonstration of Wittgenstein's beef with platonic mathematicians. All they're doing is playing around with symbols. It's not science. It's symbol manipulation. There is no discovery in the same sense that scientists mean. It is invention. -- glen e. p. ropella, 971-219-3846, http://tempusdictum.com ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
