Recent content by Look

One can't find this error in verbal-symbolic-only reasoning by using verbal-symbolic-only reasoning. In order to find this error, one has to use visual AND symbolic reasoning, as done, for example, in...

No, all you did is to use verbal-symbolic-only reasoning, as currently used by the majority of, so called, "pure" mathematicians. By using visual AND symbolic reasoning, as I did in https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/a-limits-problem-fractal-initiator-generator.881023/page-5#post-5542100, I...

Dear micromass, since ##a+b+c+d+...## is defined by "zig-zag" lines that all of them have the constant length ##2X##, then ##a+b+c+d+...=X## implies ##2X = X\sqrt{2}##. If you disagree with this implementation then please show that ##a+b+c+d+...=X## doe not imply ##2X = X\sqrt{2}##. Here is...

I hope that you realize that since there is minority, then it is not true that "all modern mathematicians agree that this is not mathematically rigorous".

Since when being minority means that one does not doing valuable mathematics?

Exactly as pictures-only can be misleading so is the case about verbal-symbolic-only reasoning. Since my diagram is not less than a linkage among visual AND symbolic reasoning, you can't value it by using pictures-only or verbal-symbolic-only reasoning.

By your (probably) formal school of thought it is not mathematically rigorous, but this is no more than your philosophical view of mathematics, that has nothing to do with how mathematics actually can be done.

So you are some kind of a superman.

My diagram is not only a picture, but it uses a linkage among visual AND symbolic reasoning.

Did you read all of them in ten minutes, understood them and then concluded that non of them "actually produce a novel result" ? You must be some kind of superman.

Hundred math books or hundreds of research papers not cover math. I think that you simply find what you search for (according to your philosophical view of math), no less no more. Here is some stuff that you probably did not read...

Come on, we are not talking about inductive "self-evidence" , but about deductive self-evidence.

This is exactly the reason of why a proof without words is more elegant than verbal-symbolic-only proofs.

A proof without words is a self-evident true that uses symbols without the need of further verbal-symbolic definitions.

Wrong, by Wikipedia proofs without words "can be considered more elegant than more formal and mathematically rigorous proofs due to their self-evident nature" Wikipedia is a reliable source for mathematics, which is not less reliable than math books.