
TL;DR
This paper explores the concept of proof in logic and sociology, examining various forms of proofs and their formal representation to clarify what constitutes a proof in different contexts.
Contribution
It provides a comparative analysis of formal and sociological notions of proof, proposing a broader understanding and implications for formal representation.
Findings
Different forms of proofs are analyzed and contrasted.
A broader, sociological perspective on proofs is proposed.
Implications for formal proof representation are discussed.
Abstract
In logic there is a clear concept of what constitutes a proof and what not. A proof is essentially defined as a finite sequence of formulae which are either axioms or derived by proof rules from formulae earlier in the sequence. Sociologically, however, it is more difficult to say what should constitute a proof and what not. In this paper we will look at different forms of proofs and try to clarify the concept of proof in the wider meaning of the term. This has implications on how proofs should be represented formally.
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Taxonomy
TopicsPhilosophy, Science, and History · Pragmatism in Philosophy and Education
