Hi Ramana, >Later, after a long exploratory theory development, having settled on the >right structures, you can go back and fill in the cheats with real proofs,
Yes, for example Peter Aczel was arguing for this once too, I think. It's a tempting approach. But my experience is that whenever I try to do this kind of thing "I get it wrong". I.e., when I finally go back, I find that it turns out not to be provable what I interpolated there (because I forgot about certain necessary hypotheses, for example), and that I have been building on quicksand. It might be that others are more precise than me, so that this is a personal problem. And it also might be the case that it still is not _too_ bad this way, that it still is relatively easy to repair things. But this "oh my, that's not provable after all!" feeling was so much a turn off to me, that I stopped trying to work in this style. Nowadays, I just "prove things in their proper order", and all of it. Freek ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ _______________________________________________ hol-info mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/hol-info
