«I will say that both pursuits appeal to a sense of aesthetics and elegance, and that the self - officiated nature of Ultimate conforms to philosophies of truth and honesty which
I hold as a mathematician,» writes Peter Behr, a designer who studied math, on Quora.
Not exact matches
Until the nineteenth century,
mathematicians traditionally
held that the axioms of geometry, arithmetic, and other disciplines could be established
as self - evidently true statements about objects in space.
Indeed, the overwhelming consensus among
mathematicians who work with transfinites is that transfinite mathematics entails no ontological commitment.4 In fact, when Platonic realism or Russellian logicism (which
holds to the extra-mental reality of infinite sets) are employed
as interpretations of infinite sets, we open the door to the very antinomies and problematics, such
as the Burali - Forti antinomy and Russell's difficulty with sets and impredicative definitions, which have led
mathematicians and philosophers of mathematics to new interpretations of set theory such
as the axiomatic.
Maybe I'm overfamiliar with Ramanujan's story after reading both The Man Who Knew Infinity and Hardy's A
Mathematician's Apology many times, but I was exasperated that this religious element was
held up
as the film's big reveal when Ramanujan's actions already made it obvious that he was a deeply spiritual man.
So if I claim 23092039580349582 is a prime number and nobody can be bothered with replying in a scientific manner (no, saying it can be divided by 2 doesn't cut it), this claim will
hold and everyone in my community will now celebrate and use this number
as evidence that
mathematicians are all wrong because the claim has not been refuted in a blog's comment section despite obviously being false?