It sounds to me that you (or Uspensky) are trying to define “proof” to mean all good things. Perhaps this come from a belief that mathematics is synonymous with proof. Arguing about definitions is generally bad and one common failure mode is to define all good things together. Have you read Thurston? He found a trade-off between proofs (in the usual sense) and other goals.
It sounds to me that you (or Uspensky) are trying to define “proof” to mean all good things.
I don’t understand what that means, and what exactly do you think it’s wrong with the definition offered. Certainly it doesn’t encompass definitions, axioms, conjectures, intuition, background knowledge and other good things in mathematics.
I know and value Thurston’s paper, and again, don’t quite see the relevance.
It sounds to me that you (or Uspensky) are trying to define “proof” to mean all good things. Perhaps this come from a belief that mathematics is synonymous with proof. Arguing about definitions is generally bad and one common failure mode is to define all good things together. Have you read Thurston? He found a trade-off between proofs (in the usual sense) and other goals.
I don’t understand what that means, and what exactly do you think it’s wrong with the definition offered. Certainly it doesn’t encompass definitions, axioms, conjectures, intuition, background knowledge and other good things in mathematics.
I know and value Thurston’s paper, and again, don’t quite see the relevance.