[FOM] Fwd: invitation to comment

[Andre.Rodin at ens.fr]

>
> I am an interested (layman, far from expert) observer of this discussion.
>
> In trying to fully understand what you are proposing is the "message",
> I think I would find it helpful, for contrast, to know what the
> corresponding answers to the following would be according to this
> point of view:

1. We MAY possibly have a sound mathematical argument for
 the Poincaré conjecture.
Actually I believe we have already such an argument (actually a proof) even I'm
not in a position to check details of Perelman's proof. But I have confidence
to experts who cheked it.


2. We  MAY NOT possibly have a sound mathematical argument for
the negation of the Poincaré conjecture. This is because it is no longer a
conjecture but a theorem.



3. Perelman's proof of the Poincaré conjecture IS  a
mathematical proof proper, and DOES NOT involve some further
non-mathematical assumptions.

4. Perelman's proof IS NOT a mixture of mathematical reasoning
and philosophical speculation.
Otherwise the mathematical community would not come to the consensus about it
like it does not come to the consensus about foundations: unlike mathematical
proofs philosophical speculations never result into a consensus.

Andrei