Prev: JSH: Some history is the future
Next: sanboz, you're using an out�dated copy of Outlook Express.
From: Claude Girard on 16 Nov 2009 13:16
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
From: Robert Israel on 16 Nov 2009 13:48
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.
--
Robert Israel israel(a)math.MyUniversitysInitials.ca
Department of Mathematics http://www.math.ubc.ca/~israel
University of British Columbia Vancouver, BC, Canada
From: W^3 on 16 Nov 2009 15:42
In article <rbisrael.20091116183616$59db(a)news.acm.uiuc.edu>,
Robert Israel <israel(a)math.MyUniversitysInitials.ca> 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.

"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".
From: Larry Hammick on 16 Nov 2009 19:04
"W^3" <aderamey.addw(a)comcast.net> wrote in message
news:aderamey.addw-4FB21A.12415616112009(a)News.Individual.NET...
> In article <rbisrael.20091116183616$59db(a)news.acm.uiuc.edu>,
> Robert Israel <israel(a)math.MyUniversitysInitials.ca> 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.
>
> "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".

"It is one thing to prove a result and another thing to understand the
matter," said some genius here on sci.math one time. *wink*
LH


From: OwlHoot on 17 Nov 2009 03:31
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
 |  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.