Re: Roger Ebert comes out of the closet!!

On Sep 5, 9:31 pm, Garamond Lethe <cartographi...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
On 2009-09-06, Walter Bushell <pr...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:





In article <QNnom.284960$E61.140...@xxxxxxxxxxxx>,
 Garamond Lethe <cartographi...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

<q>
I'm not qualified to say whether or not God exists. I kind of doubt
He does.  Nevertheless, I'm always saying that the SF [Supreme
Fascist, Erdos's title for God] has this transfinite Book that
contains the best proofs of all mathematical theorems, proofs that
are elegant and perfect... You don't have to believe in God, but you
should believe in the Book.
</q>

Paul Erdos

But one of the things that support the real existence of mathematical
objects is that the axiomatic method has been shown to be a failure. No
matter how many axioms we have there remain things that cannot be proven
or disproved by the axiom for the natural numbers.

I'd also consider the underwhelming success of automated theorem proving
as an indictment of the axiomatic approach.

Some of my professors
were quite adamant[1] about the independent reality of some mathematical
objects.

Poking snex aside, I would really prefer to believe that the natural numbers
are an entirely human construct, that several other rich and viable systems
could exist and we just happened to luck into the one we're familiar with..  

But of the many people I know who do math for a living, not one of them
believes this.  One in particular trained as a physicist and is now a
theoretical biologist, and she emphatically considers herself a neoplatonist.

I do have to admit, though, that I don't know any coders or computer
scientists who this this way.  Programs (and algorithms) are still
thought to be created, not discovered.  

Hmmm. I've done a reasonable amount of algorithm development.
Some of the things I think I was most clever about turn out to
be classical solutions in the realm of graph theory that I
rediscovered.

And there' one algorithm I've done about 5 times afresh, slightly
differently. The platonic ideal of the algorithm exists alright.
I just make various simplifying (or complicating) modifications
based on cheats or quirks of the environment I'm working in.
Others have published similar solutions, existing in a sort
of cloud around the ONE TRVE solution. That idealized algorithm
exists and humans just dance around it or discover it. They
don't invent it.

Moreover, while I'm not a software professional by virtue of
a CS degree, I've worked with enough who are so credentialed
that the vision of millions of monkeys banking on keyboards
writing Shakespeare's sonnets or a compendium of Kunth's
classics springs forth unbidden, though I think for some
sonnets would be more likely even if the keyboard bangers
exhibit a total lack of aesthetic wherewithal.

That may be due to the field
still being in its infancy, or maybe it's because our thinking is
still largely guided by the limitations of the machines.  Or maybe
CS folks are much more comfortable with arbitrary manipulation of
meaningless symbols....

Or maybe many are so socially inept that they view the world
in all too egocentric of a perspective.

Time to reread "The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics", I think.





[1] Not the first ant as the word seems to shape.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Roger Ebert comes out of the closet!!
    ... I'm not qualified to say whether or not God exists. ... contains the best proofs of all mathematical theorems, ... I've done a reasonable amount of algorithm development. ... Compared to mathematicians? ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Roger Ebert comes out of the closet!!
    ... I'm not qualified to say whether or not God exists. ... contains the best proofs of all mathematical theorems, ... matter how many axioms we have there remain things that cannot be proven ... Time to reread "The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics", ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Why isnt there a 1 to 1 correspondence between the real numbers and the natural numbers?
    ... The definition of pi has no mention of an infinite series. ... definitions and theorems you can construct a system with the same facts ... No one claimed that pure mathematics was instantly useful! ... with an algorithm that is more compact, i.e. of less complexity, than ...
    (sci.math.num-analysis)
  • Re: Raatikainens critique of Chaitin
    ... You call his AIT monograph a collection of footnotes? ... > are some quite serious and elegant theorems there. ... I want to erase Platonist tendencies from mathematics, ... > decisively eliminate the idea of God and heaven. ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Raatikainens critique of Chaitin
    ... You call his AIT monograph a collection of footnotes? ... > are some quite serious and elegant theorems there. ... I want to erase Platonist tendencies from mathematics, ... eliminate the idea of God and heaven, then we're not on the same team. ...
    (sci.math)