Timeline for Proofs without words
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
5 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 19, 2014 at 12:36 | comment | added | Manuel Bärenz | On the contrary, I would say that any picture that is a rigorous proof must first be formalised in some sense, and will then most probably be in words of some form. | |
| Sep 16, 2011 at 17:33 | comment | added | Mariano Suárez-Álvarez | I doubt there is any sense in which one can formalize the notion, but I think it is pretty clear that a proof written in the first order calculus, or any other calculus, is simply not a "proof without words". You do not believe in the question, you say, but I honestly cannot understand what that can possibly mean: there is certainly something that gets the name proof-without-words (there is even a section in the MAA Monthly dedicated exclusively to this, and it has run for decades!) and most people ---while probably not being able to explain exactly what they are--- recognize them. | |
| Aug 9, 2011 at 17:35 | comment | added | Jesko Hüttenhain | So are pictures. That's my point. | |
| Jul 6, 2011 at 1:01 | comment | added | Mariano Suárez-Álvarez | Formulas (first order or what not) are just words written in abbreviated form. That really does not count... | |
| Jun 28, 2011 at 16:46 | history | answered | Jesko Hüttenhain | CC BY-SA 3.0 |