FOM: Why Hersh can't
kanovei at wminf2.math.uni-wuppertal.de
Thu Jan 22 11:18:56 EST 1998
<From: "Shipman, Joe x2845" <shipman at bny18.bloomberg.com>
<My peak rating is 2405 (Senior Master)
Are you sure you understand the Hersh's notion of
CONSENSUS adequately ?
It is quite clear that this cannot be
understood as any sort of conscious voting (in
direct or indirect meaning) among mathematicians
(say by unanimous decision of an annual conference
I would understand CONSENSUS as something like
"established consistency with the basic laws of mathematics".
Here: CONSISTENCY is to be established by concrete
mathematicians, just in the same way as phisicists
"prove" their theories (however by different tools).
On the other hand, BASIC LAWS OF MATHEMATICS is
something more stable, which, on the one hand,
has been elaborated in the course of the long
history of mathematics (since Greeks), while on
the other hand implicitly goes back to measurements
and forms observation, having therefore both social
and (indirectly) physical nature.
More information about the FOM