[FOM] Fwd: invitation to comment
Andre.Rodin at ens.fr
Andre.Rodin at ens.fr
Fri May 20 02:00:07 EDT 2011
>
> 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
More information about the FOM
mailing list