Cambridge Core – Philosophy of Science – Proofs and Refutations – edited by Imre Lakatos. PROOFS AND REFUTATIONS. ‘zip fastener’ in a deductive structure goes upwards from the bottom – the conclusion – to the top – the premisses, others say that. I. LAKATOS. 6 7. The Problem of Content Revisited. (a) The naivet6 of the naive conjecture. (b) Induction as the basis of the method of proofs and refutations.
|Genre:||Health and Food|
|Published (Last):||25 February 2006|
|PDF File Size:||5.39 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||2.96 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
That is, one should look at one’s proof, and pin down exactly what properties are used, and then based on that thorough examination, state one’s redutations accordingly.
Although I appreciates Lakatos’ classroom discussion style as original I had a hard time keeping up with the development of the conversation and keeping the original question in mind.
Proofs and Refutations: The Logic of Mathematical Discovery
Thanks for telling us about the problem. Many of you, I’m guessing, have refutationx math problems. But Stove also makes the point that Lakatos was, in fact, only carrying “Popperism” to its logical conclusion for Popper could not find a way to place a limit to his notions of falsifiability and bracketing. In Appendix I, Lakatos summarizes this method by the following list of stages:.
The discovery led to the definitional distinction between ‘point-wise convergence’ and ‘uniform convergence’. Proofs and Refutations by Imre Lakatos. As an enthusiastic but relatively feeble intellect–at least by the standards of today’s ultra-competitive modern university wizards–I felt cheated.
A line I thought was pretty interesting is the following: Jun 13, Douglas rated it it was amazing Shelves: The idea that the definition creates the mathematical meaning is a another powerful one, and I think it would be interesting to do an activity where stude Although I appreciates Lakatos’ classroom discussion style as original I had a hard time keeping up with the development of the conversation and keeping the original question in mind.
The counter-examples are then analyzed and new concepts are identified. He makes you think about the nature of proof, kind of along the lines of lajatos great Morris Kline–still an occasional presence during my graduate school days at New York University–and who’s wonderful book, “Mathematics and This is an excellent, though very difficult, read.
One of the issues is, in fact, the definition of a polyhedron, lakatoe well as the difference between Eulerian and non-Eulerian polyhedra. Overall pretty readable for what it is – will revisit again someday.
Written in Socratic dialogue.
Proofs and Refutations: The Logic of Mathematical Discovery by Imre Lakatos
Lakayos main argument takes the form of a dialogue between a number of students and a teacher. There can only be man-the-organism exhibiting behavior much as beavers or wasps build dams and nests.
Proof and refutations is set as a dialog between students and teacher, where the teacher slowly goes through teaching a proof while students, representing famous mathematicians pipe in with conjecture and counter points. I picked this up seeing it on a anv of Robb Seaton’s favorite books”.
I’ve never gotten past Algebra II, and I still understood most of the book, though to be sure I missed out on the bits of calculus here and there, and didn’t know enough about math to discern which dialogue participant stood for which philosopher. Jun 30, Kelly John Rose rated it it was amazing. Lakatos argues for a different kind of textbook, one that uses heuristic style. A finely written, well-argued book, it is exemplary in its succinct and elegant presentation.
Portions of Proofs and Refutations were required reading for one of my classes for my master’s degree, but I liked it enough that Refutaations finished it after the course was completed.
I know I can understand many great mathematical ideas but I am put off by the reliance on logical primness often leading to roundabout “proofs,” merely for the sake of a refutatkons notion of rigor. According to Roger Kimball’s review of Stove, “Who was David Stove”, New Criterion, March”In [Popper’s] philosophy of science, we find the curious thought that falsifiability, not verifiability, is the distinguishing mark of scientific theories; this means that, for Popper, one theory is better than another if it is more dis-provable than the other.
We assume, incorrectly that mathematics are solid continents of rules and facts, but what we observe are loosely connected archipelagos of calibrated and stable forms where those islands are in constant risk of being retaken by the sea.
refuutations Theorems begin as mere conjectures, whose proofs are informal and whose terms are vaguely defined. Whenever one of the characters says something flowery and absurd, there’s a little footnote to something almost identical said by Poincare or Dedekind or some other prominent mathematician. Both of these This is a frequently cited work in the philosophy of mathematics. Proofs and Refutations – Canada.
In this essay Stove makes a devastating critique of Popper and portrays Lakatos as his over-eager acolyte; a sort of Otis to Lex Luther, if you will.
Most remarkable is the narrative drive behind the argument.
Taking the apparently simple problem before the class the teacher shows how many difficulties there in fact are — from that of proof to definition to verificationamong others. Lakatos argues that this view misses quite a lot of how mathematical ideas historically have emerged.
At the end of the Introduction, Lakatos explains that his purpose is to challenge formalism in mathematicsand to show that informal mathematics grows by a logic of “proofs and refutations”. Jul 14, Jake rated it it was amazing.
Proofs and Refutations – Wikipedia
Progress indeed replaces naive classification by theoretical classification, that is, by theory-generated proof-generated, or if you like, explanation-generated classification. Jul 16, Gwern rated it really liked it. But two mysteries do not proots up to understanding.