FOM: Our understanding of "proof"

[Lincoln Wallen]

This topic may have been discussed earlier---I am relatively new to
the FOM list, but some of the views expressed in recent postings have left
me perplexed as to what is being considered "foundational".

For example, as a way of (a) trying to understand the reaction that
Hersh's comments produced from the list, and (b) the aversion to
(late) musings of Wittgenstein, can I ask a couple of naive questions
to tease out some assumptions.  Admitting the notion of "mathematical
proof" as a proper subject of study for f.o.m.:

	what foundational aspects of this notion remain to be understood?

	and,
	
	what relationship should any explication of the notion 
	of mathematical proof, proposed as being foundational, bear to
	the texts mathematicians observably produce and call "proofs"?


Lincoln Wallen