Timeline for What advantage humans have over computers in mathematics?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
10 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 13, 2016 at 13:13 | comment | added | Mikhail Katz | @Burak, the young innocent will probably able to follow Bourbaki (see my answer) but he may come away from reading Bourbaki with a distaste for logic and set theory, as argued by A. Mathias. | |
| Mar 13, 2016 at 13:12 | history | edited | Mikhail Katz | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 301 characters in body
|
| Mar 13, 2016 at 11:33 | history | made wiki | Post Made Community Wiki by Todd Trimble | ||
| Mar 13, 2016 at 11:00 | comment | added | Burak | @ToddTrimble: Thanks. This was illuminating. It seems that Bourbaki is using the wrong definition (Remark 8.1). The correct $1$ only requires 217 symbols by Proposition 5.3. I must say that the most amusing part of the paper is the question "what will happen to a young innocent who decides to learn mathematics by reading Bourbaki, and to start with Volume I?" | |
| Mar 13, 2016 at 10:29 | comment | added | Todd Trimble | @Burak Link: dpmms.cam.ac.uk/~ardm/inefff.pdf | |
| Mar 13, 2016 at 10:27 | comment | added | Burak | Why is Bourbaki's definition of 1 not $\{\emptyset\}$? Surely von Neumann ordinals were around when Bourbaki was founded. | |
| Mar 13, 2016 at 9:04 | history | edited | Mikhail Katz | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 1 character in body
|
| Mar 13, 2016 at 9:02 | comment | added | Mikhail Katz | @BrendanMcKay, very good point. You probably don't use Bourbaki's definition :-) | |
| Mar 13, 2016 at 9:02 | comment | added | Brendan McKay | And, yet, I write computer programs that deal (usually correctly) with 2 and even 3, every day. | |
| Mar 13, 2016 at 8:55 | history | answered | Mikhail Katz | CC BY-SA 3.0 |