barrington interview
Jeffery Wilson clueland.com · 09 Oct 2014, 20:52
· from 2014-October.txt.gz
This is the message as the crawl holds it, before anything
here touched it. What the conversation shows has been through ingest: transfer
encodings decoded, attachments dropped, quote markers repaired, and the
archiver’s ? resolved into quotation marks and dashes. Those
repairs are judgements and some of them are wrong, which is what this page is
for. Email addresses are obscured here as they are everywhere else on the site,
so it is before our repairs rather than byte for byte.
From: jwilson at clueland.com (Jeffery Wilson clueland.com) Date: Thu, 09 Oct 2014 15:52:55 -0500 Subject: (urth) barrington interview In-Reply-To: <0DA454A32913114C9CC19BB781FB907D0129FC at ETSUMB2.etsu.edu> References: <BLU175-W672D9E233A130368B49B6CFA00 at phx.gbl> <0DA454A32913114C9CC19BB781FB907D0129FC at ETSUMB2.etsu.edu> Message-ID: <5436F5A7.10604 at clueland.com> On 10/9/2014 7:04 AM, Norwood, Frederick Hudson wrote: > I think you are also confusing math with its applications. Pure mathematics consists of a set of axioms, a set of definitions, and the theorems that follow logically from those axioms and definitions. The logic involved is called a mathematical proof. For mathematics to be untrue, you need a case where the following happens. You know that if A is true, then B must be true. You know A is true. But it turns out B is false. We have that now, it's the difference of validity (true in every circumstance under consideration) to satisfiability (true in some circumstances). There are various algorithms to work these out in modern logical theory, though not every conjecture's provability can decided, which is part of what separates it from the classical logic theory. -- Jeff Wilson - < jwilson at clueland.com > A&M Texarkana Computational Intelligence Lab < http://www.tamut.edu/cil >
An unofficial mirror of a public mailing list · about & removal requests · download the archive · before the list · original archive at urth.net