>>11404702Are you saying only people who study computer assisted proofs `understand what proofs are` and that proof theory contradicts modern real analysis? lol
Maybe to people who worship computers mathematics MUST be equal to the things computers can do, but to the rest of us, mathematics is beyond what computers can do. Mathematics is a creative field that humans do, and it has always been useful, and coincidentally the most diverging programs such as any object of topology (e.g homeomorphisms) or geometry (Calabi Yau manifolds), all of which rely on infinite processes, find applications in all investigations of science into reality (e.g topological field theory). Maybe it's just a coincidence then, nature randomly obeys abstractions beyond reach of the `programs`.
Or maybe you should just study more proof theory to learn what it actually says. It's pretty funny to evaluate the rigour and integrity of mathematicians from the standards of codemonkeys, but I see your point more clearly now `hurr how come it does not look like my compooter programs`.
When will you guys come to terms with the fact that nature speaks in the `non rigorous` language that modern mathematicians cooked up and not your`rigorous` codemonkey friendly language.
>>11405590Mathematical platonists certainly are not mentally challenged or autistic like people who want to reduce mathematics to formal logic 80 years after Godel. Don't equate mathematics with what sophomores studying mathematical logic can see. What Godel did was just formalizing the bureaucratic restriction boiling down to the axiomatic system's ban on self-referring contradictions. But you may always use a slightly broader system of tools to think and decide what the answer actually is. In fact people who rave about Godel would probably be surprised that we cant construct perpetual motion machines even though we haven't tried all the combinations of cogs and wheels, yet physics is still complex and certainly not bland, lol
