Science is a human activity (was: Python syntax in Lisp and Scheme)

[Michele Dondi]

On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 10:37:33 -0500, David C. Ullrich
<ullrich at math.okstate.edu> wrote:

>It's certainly true that mathematicians do not _write_
>proofs in formal languages. But all the proofs that I'm
>aware of _could_ be formalized quite easily. Are you
>aware of any counterexamples to this? Things that
>mathematicians accept as correct proofs which are
>not clearly formalizable in, say, ZFC?

I am not claiming that it is a counterexample, but I've always met
with some difficulties imagining how the usual proof of Euler's
theorem about the number of corners, sides and faces of a polihedron
(correct terminology, BTW?) could be formalized. Also, however that
could be done, I feel an unsatisfactory feeling about how complex it
would be if compared to the conceptual simplicity of the proof itself.


Just a thought,
Michele
-- 
> Comments should say _why_ something is being done.
Oh? My comments always say what _really_ should have happened. :)
- Tore Aursand on comp.lang.perl.misc