home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: sparky!uunet!pipex!warwick!uknet!edcastle!festival.ed.ac.uk!anich
- From: anich@festival.ed.ac.uk (Sandy Nicholson)
- Newsgroups: sci.math
- Subject: Re: Difference between "show" and "prove"
- Keywords: proof demonstration
- Message-ID: <29712@castle.ed.ac.uk>
- Date: 17 Dec 92 21:28:20 GMT
- References: <Bz7KyK.297@ulowell.ulowell.edu> <BzAIMI.Gt@news.cso.uiuc.edu> <1992Dec16.191442.12895@news.Hawaii.Edu> <1992Dec16.195452.29610@u.washington.edu>
- Sender: nntpusr@castle.ed.ac.uk
- Organization: Edinburgh University (opinions expressed are my own)
- Lines: 21
-
- In article <1992Dec16.195452.29610@u.washington.edu>, mcfarlan@corona.math.washington.edu (Thomas J. McFarlane) writes:
-
- |> A distinction between demonstration and proof can be made as follows.
- |> When one is working within an axiomatic system and derives formal
- |> consequences of the axioms, this is called a demonstration. It's
- |> something a computer could verify (in principle). On the other hand,
- |> when we prove something we appeal to insight. You might say proofs
- |> are informal, while demonstrations are formal. Of course, one may
- |> add axioms and definitions to formalize an informal argument, in which
- |> case the proof becomes a demonstration.
-
- Surely this is the wrong way round. I would agree with other posters that in
- general no distinction is made between `proof' and `demonstration.' However,
- in the context of the theory of formal systems, one *demonstrates* (rigorously
- we hope) both model-theoretic and proof-theoretic results, the latter
- pertaining to the notion of formal *proof* within a framework of strict rules
- of inference. The *demonstration* of results about formal systems is what
- involves mathematical insight.
- --
- Sandy Nicholson (anich@festival.ed.ac.uk)
- Department of Mathematics and Statistics, Edinburgh University, Scotland
-