Greetings,
I just read through the first 5 chapters of Logic for Mathematicians (Hamilton) in the span of 3 days. I will obviously revisit this text, but in the mean time, I have a question: Why are the proofs presented in regular mathematics textbooks considered rigorous if they're not being proven in the formal deductive system K_script{L} (i.e. step by step using the allowable rules of deduction)? Are the theorems (in the system K_script{L}) being proven throughout chapters 3 and 4 being presented as justifications of the proof templates used in "rigorous math textbooks"? (rigorous in quotes since they are using proof templates instead of starting axioms within the formal system of deduction K_script{L}). I need to spend more time going over the detail on my second run through this book, but I would appreciate any insight for now. Thanks
[link] [comments]
from math https://ift.tt/3gAFq5I
Post a Comment