Why you can't prove a single mathematical thing beyond a shadow of a doubt

leemarvin
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
Oyez!

I'm an amateur philosopher and I'd like to start up an interesting debate. The topic will be mathematics (and, in general, everything) and how it is not logically possible to prove such a system. This is my informal argument:

1. Humans live in a "reality" governed by laws, axioms, and such.

2. This reality is defined as no more than our perceptions, for our understanding of it depends on our mental processes.

3. This reality is always changing as new studies, etc. change or break certain things.

4. All that is required to make something not 100% certain is a conceivable counter-example.

5. Since humans are not in a position to judge the truth of the world absolutely and without doubt, they must rely on themselves.

6. To borrow Descartes' thought-experiment, if a maleficent being is controlling the world and making sure things abide mathematically only when people are looking, or through some manipulation manages to make the "untruth" that 2+2=4 the truth, how are we to say that mathematics is 100% certain if this random counter-example is even conceivable?

I'd like to hear some thoughts on this. Our own logic dictates that it is not possible to say our logic is 100% sound.
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
This does not meet the minimum posting requirements for the philosophy forum. Please read the guidelines next time.
 
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In Dirac’s Principles of Quantum Mechanics published in 1930 he introduced a “convenient notation” he referred to as a “delta function” which he treated as a continuum analog to the discrete Kronecker delta. The Kronecker delta is simply the indexed components of the identity operator in matrix algebra Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/what-exactly-is-diracs-delta-function/ by...
Fermat's Last Theorem has long been one of the most famous mathematical problems, and is now one of the most famous theorems. It simply states that the equation $$ a^n+b^n=c^n $$ has no solutions with positive integers if ##n>2.## It was named after Pierre de Fermat (1607-1665). The problem itself stems from the book Arithmetica by Diophantus of Alexandria. It gained popularity because Fermat noted in his copy "Cubum autem in duos cubos, aut quadratoquadratum in duos quadratoquadratos, et...
I'm interested to know whether the equation $$1 = 2 - \frac{1}{2 - \frac{1}{2 - \cdots}}$$ is true or not. It can be shown easily that if the continued fraction converges, it cannot converge to anything else than 1. It seems that if the continued fraction converges, the convergence is very slow. The apparent slowness of the convergence makes it difficult to estimate the presence of true convergence numerically. At the moment I don't know whether this converges or not.
Back
Top