Prev: JSH: Some history is the future
Next: sanboz, you're using an out�dated copy of Outlook Express.
From: Tonico on 17 Nov 2009 10:00
On Nov 17, 10:31 am, OwlHoot <ravensd...(a)googlemail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 16, 8:42 pm, W^3 <aderamey.a...(a)comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > In article <rbisrael.20091116183616$5...(a)news.acm.uiuc.edu>,
> >  Robert Israel <isr...(a)math.MyUniversitysInitials.ca> wrote:
>
> > > Claude Girard <girardgal...(a)gmail.com> writes:
>
> > > > Hello
>
> > > > Need help retracing the source of a quote - I've read it somewhere but
> > > > just can't seem to retrace it (or Google-it). It goes something like
> > > > "A proof is not so much about showing that something is true but WHY
> > > > it is true". Does someone know who has said that?
>
> > > > Thx
> > > > Claude
>
> > > I'm sure somebody has said something like that, but as it stands this
> > > statement is simply and blatantly false.  We may like a proof better if
> > > it offers us some insight into "why", but that is not relevant to
> > > it being a proof.
>
> > "Understanding a proof is not so much about verifying that something
> > is true but seeing why it is true" might be a better whay to put it.
>
> > > > it is true".
>
> As the phrase "so much" is equivalent to "just", it does sort of
> concede that verifying something is true is one aspect of a proof.
> So I don't agree it is false as it stands.
>
> The author could have been Grothendieck. He certainly held this
> opinion, and on occasion failed to publish his own proofs if he
> felt they relied on magic tricks and were not illuminating in
> the sense of the quote.
>
> Cheers
>
> John Ramsden-

I can understand Grothendieck not publishing some of his "proofs" if
they relied on magic tricks: this is more a thing for JHS, WM and many
other illuminated like those, and not for actual mathematicians.

He may have felt like in this cartoon: http://star.psy.ohio-state.edu/coglab/Miracle.html

Tonio
From: T.H. Ray on 17 Nov 2009 04:54
Robert Israel wrote

> Claude Girard <girardgalois(a)gmail.com> writes:
>
> > Hello
> >
> > Need help retracing the source of a quote - I've
> read it somewhere but
> > just can't seem to retrace it (or Google-it). It
> goes something like
> > "A proof is not so much about showing that
> something is true but WHY
> > it is true". Does someone know who has said that?
> >
> > Thx
> > Claude
>
> I'm sure somebody has said something like that, but
> as it stands this
> statement is simply and blatantly false. We may like
> a proof better if
> it offers us some insight into "why", but that is not
> relevant to
> it being a proof.
> --
To the extent that a proof is not "about" something,
yes.

However, while proof conveys no meaning of itself,
the theorem which the proof supports, does. There are
many, many ways to prove the Pythagorean Theorem, for
example; only the way(s) useful to the area in which
one seeks to prove another theorem informs of "why" the
PT is important.

Tom

> Robert Israel
> israel(a)math.MyUniversitysInitials.ca
> Department of Mathematics
> http://www.math.ubc.ca/~israel
> University of British Columbia Vancouver,
> BC, Canada
From: bert on 17 Nov 2009 15:11
On 16 Nov, 18:16, Claude Girard <girardgal...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello
>
> Need help retracing the source of a quote - I've read it somewhere but
> just can't seem to retrace it (or Google-it). It goes something like
> "A proof is not so much about showing that something is true but WHY
> it is true". Does someone know who has said that?

I've found something very similar.

In "Four Colours Suffice" (0-713-99670-6,
Allen Lane 2002), on p.220 Robin Wilson says
of Appel and Haaken's computer-assisted
proof that "Ian Stewart complained that
it did not explain WHY the theorem was true."

Nevertheless, while Professor Stewart comments
at some length on this theorem on pp.495-499
of the 1996 OUP edition (0-19-510519-2) of
"What is Mathematics?" by Courant and Robbins,
he does not there make the complaint quoted.
--
From: Axel Vogt on 17 Nov 2009 15:22
Robert Israel wrote:
> Claude Girard <girardgalois(a)gmail.com> writes:
>
>> Hello
>>
>> Need help retracing the source of a quote - I've read it somewhere but
>> just can't seem to retrace it (or Google-it). It goes something like
>> "A proof is not so much about showing that something is true but WHY
>> it is true". Does someone know who has said that?
>>
>> Thx
>> Claude
>
> I'm sure somebody has said something like that, but as it stands this
> statement is simply and blatantly false. We may like a proof better if
> it offers us some insight into "why", but that is not relevant to
> it being a proof.

Not picking words, but that 'insight attitude' depends a bit on the
'school', where one stems from. I quite often saw speakers being
faced to such in seminars of Karl Stein (even his scholars had to
be aware of that). It was more towards understanding, what actually
was behind the apparatus used.
From: master1729 on 17 Nov 2009 05:47
bert wrote :

> On 16 Nov, 18:16, Claude Girard
> <girardgal...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hello
> >
> > Need help retracing the source of a quote - I've
> read it somewhere but
> > just can't seem to retrace it (or Google-it). It
> goes something like
> > "A proof is not so much about showing that
> something is true but WHY
> > it is true". Does someone know who has said that?
>
> I've found something very similar.
>
> In "Four Colours Suffice" (0-713-99670-6,
> Allen Lane 2002), on p.220 Robin Wilson says
> of Appel and Haaken's computer-assisted
> proof that "Ian Stewart complained that
> it did not explain WHY the theorem was true."
>
> Nevertheless, while Professor Stewart comments
> at some length on this theorem on pp.495-499
> of the 1996 OUP edition (0-19-510519-2) of
> "What is Mathematics?" by Courant and Robbins,
> he does not there make the complaint quoted.
> --

i know ' why '
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3
Prev: JSH: Some history is the future
Next: sanboz, you're using an out�dated copy of Outlook Express.