Quite flattering to us programmers. (Here's the actual article.<http://www.ams.org/bull/1994-30-02/S0273-0979-1994-00502-6/S0273-0979-1994-00502-6.pdf>) My experience, though, is that programming is easier. (I was a mediocre math major as an undergraduate and then found computer science, something I could actually do.) A similar argument might conclude that driving from New York to Los Angeles is even harder than programming because of all the details one must get right to arrive in the right place with crashing into anything. But that doesn't mean it's either difficult or formally correct.
-- Russ Abbott _____________________________________________ Professor, Computer Science California State University, Los Angeles Cell phone: 310-621-3805 o Check out my blog at http://russabbott.blogspot.com/ On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 9:43 PM, Nicholas Thompson < [email protected]> wrote: > Dear Friammers, > > We have decided to carry on from our seminar on Emergence to one on > Mathematical Thinking. Although we don't meet for a month, I found myself > reading the first assignment, Thurston's *On Proof and Progress in > Mathematics*. Now Thurston loves mathematics and is apparently good at > it, but he is firm in arguing that the process of proof is not as the > normative account would have it. Given our local debates about the ideal > of formalism and given my suspicion that many computer programmers suffer > from math envy (the way experimental psychologists suffer from physics > envy), I was astonished by the following paragraphs. > > > *The standared of correctness and completeness necessary to get a computer > program to work at all is a couple of orders of magnitude higher than the > mathematical community's standard of valid proof.* > > > Astonished, and yet, instantly convinced that it was true. Note that > Thurston is proud of how mathematicians do their work; no criticism here. > > > *I think that mathematics is one of the most intellectually gratifying of > huan activities. Because we have a high standard for clear and convincing > thinking and because we place a high value on listening to and trying to > understand each other, we don't engage in interminable arguments and endless > redoing of our mathematics. We are prepared to be convinced by others. > Intellctually, mathematics moves very quickly. Entire mathmatical > landscapes change and change again in amazing ways during a single career. > * > ** > *When one considers how hard it is to write a computer program even > approaching the intellectual scope of a good mathematical paper and how much > greater time and effort have to be put into it to make it 'almost'formally > correct, it is preposterous to claim that mathematics as we practice is any > where near formally corrrect.* > > > You would almost think that computer programming was the Queen of the > Sciences. > > Nick > > > > I wonder what you all think about it. > > Nick > > > Nicholas S. Thompson > Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology, > Clark University ([email protected]) > http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/<http://home.earthlink.net/%7Enickthompson/naturaldesigns/> > http://www.cusf.org [City University of Santa Fe] > > > > > > ============================================================ > 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
