Search Results
| Search type | Search syntax |
|---|---|
| Tags | [tag] |
| Exact | "words here" |
| Author |
user:1234 user:me (yours) |
| Score |
score:3 (3+) score:0 (none) |
| Answers |
answers:3 (3+) answers:0 (none) isaccepted:yes hasaccepted:no inquestion:1234 |
| Views | views:250 |
| Code | code:"if (foo != bar)" |
| Sections |
title:apples body:"apples oranges" |
| URL | url:"*.example.com" |
| Saves | in:saves |
| Status |
closed:yes duplicate:no migrated:no wiki:no |
| Types |
is:question is:answer |
| Exclude |
-[tag] -apples |
| For more details on advanced search visit our help page | |
Results tagged with mathematical-philosophy
Search options not deleted
user 50073
Philosophical aspects of logic and set theory; truth status of mathematical axioms; Philosophy of Mathematics; philosophical aspects of mathematics in general; relation of mathematics to philosophy; etc. Consider also posting at http://philosophy.stackexchange.com/, where philosophy-of-mathematics is one of the most popular tags.
21
votes
Request for examples: verifying vs understanding proofs
From a logic viewpoint, verifying a proof is a syntactic business, also known as symbol pushing, whereas understanding a proof is a semantic matter. I cannot resist giving a layman analogy as an appet …
10
votes
Taking a theorem as a definition and proving the original definition as a theorem
Example 1: In some textbooks, the trigonometric functions are defined via geometry. The advantage is that it is simpler to understand, but the disadvantage is that it is difficult to make completely r …
4
votes
Can you do math without knowing how to count?
This question, like many others, is based on a fundamental conceptual error. Any formal system whatsoever that humans can devise and use must be one with unambiguous rules. Therefore its theorems (i.e …
- 2,912