>>13299498In general, rigor refers to what is robust and detailed enough for most people, or good enough for people whose opinions are respected in the field. For some people, mathtard 4chanian pseuds in particular, rigor can take on some other, ephemeral quality. Usually, a mention of rigor is nothing but an appeal to authority which works since most people are under the wrong impression that rigor is an objective standard. In physics, where rigor means, "Complies with the basic rules of arithmetic," then it is objective. However, people very often let rigor mutate into a fully subjective standard and then build their rhetoric around ambiguity (and dichotomy) between objective and subjective standards attached to the word "rigor." If something has a problem in it, usually one would cite the problem. A generalized citation of a lack of rigor, however, allows one to fling shit at another's work without having to cite any errors or problems. In the objective rigor, one can say, "No. The quantity is not real for any N but you have treated it as such." In the subjective rigor, one can always say, "This isn't rigorous," and people will assume that if you know what rigor is then you must be smart. Due to Godel incompleteness, detractors will always be able to draw out their criticisms long enough to expose an incompleteness but if completeness and rigor are the same, then nothing is rigorous and a lack of rigor is a property of all work in mathematics.
This person
>>13296874 tried to define rigor as
>A rigorous definition is one that allows you to decide, given an object or a concept, whether or not it falls under that definition.However, it is my opinion that no reasonable person could have read his earlier mention of rigor here
>>13296748 >Would you like to provide a rigorous definition of real numbers?and assumed that he meant, "Would you like to provide a definition that allows you to decide (opine) if something is in R or not."
