[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Morally equivalent
From: |
Eduardo Ochs |
Subject: |
Re: Morally equivalent |
Date: |
Sun, 16 Oct 2022 20:47:29 -0300 |
On Sun, 16 Oct 2022 at 20:34, Michael Heerdegen
<michael_heerdegen@web.de> wrote:
>
> Christopher Dimech <dimech@gmx.com> writes:
>
> > The problem was about the wording, if it turns out Stefan wrote it, then
> > he is not above anybody else. The problem is that in some important ways,
> > things are not precise.
>
> Nothing in human language is precise. For me it was precise enough to
> understand the meaning perfectly.
>
> > And users do not like that.
>
> I liked it. Most people like it much less when Stefan tries to be more
> precise.
>
> Honestly, the only problem with that wording is that it might make
> people wonder whether it is some sort of technical term, which it is not
> really, so it can potentially confuse people.
>
> Michael.
It is "some sort of technical term":
"A source of tension between Philosophers of Mathematics and
Mathematicians is the fact that each group feels ignored by the
other; daily mathematical practice seems barely affected by the
questions the Philosophers are considering. In this talk I will
describe an issue that does have an impact on mathematical practice,
and a philosophical stance on mathematics that is detectable in the
work of practising mathematicians.
"No doubt controversially, I will call this issue `morality', but
the term is not of my coining: there are mathematicians across the
world who use the word `morally' to great effect in private, and I
propose that there should be a public theory of what they mean by
this. The issue arises because proofs, despite being revered as the
backbone of mathematical truth, often contribute very little to a
mathematician's understanding. `Moral' considerations, however,
contribute a great deal. I will first describe what these `moral'
considerations might be, and why mathematicians have appropriated
the word `morality' for this notion. However, not all mathematicians
are concerned with such notions, and I will give a characterisation
of `moralist' mathematics and `moralist' mathematicians, and discuss
the development of `morality' in individuals and in mathematics as a
whole. Fi- nally, I will propose a theory for standardising or
universalising a system of mathematical morality, and discuss how
this might help in the development of good mathematics."
http://eugeniacheng.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/cheng-morality.pdf
[[]] =/,
Eduardo Ochs
http://angg.twu.net/#eev
- RE: [External] : Re: Morally equivalent, (continued)
Re: Morally equivalent, Bob Newell, 2022/10/16
- RE: [External] : Re: Morally equivalent, Drew Adams, 2022/10/16
- Re: Morally equivalent, Christopher Dimech, 2022/10/16
- Re: Morally equivalent, Michael Heerdegen, 2022/10/16
- Re: Morally equivalent, Christopher Dimech, 2022/10/16
- Re: Morally equivalent, Michael Heerdegen, 2022/10/16
- Re: Morally equivalent,
Eduardo Ochs <=
- Re: Morally equivalent, Stefan Monnier, 2022/10/16
- Re: Morally equivalent, Dr Rainer Woitok, 2022/10/18
Re: Morally equivalent, Christopher Dimech, 2022/10/16
Re: Morally equivalent, Michael Heerdegen, 2022/10/16
Re: Morally equivalent, Christopher Dimech, 2022/10/16
Re: Morally equivalent, Michael Heerdegen, 2022/10/16
Re: Morally equivalent, Christopher Dimech, 2022/10/16
Re: Morally equivalent, tomas, 2022/10/17
Re: Morally equivalent, Christopher Dimech, 2022/10/17
Re: Morally equivalent, Akib Azmain Turja, 2022/10/20