585:"With the aid of computers, it is possible to check proofs mechanically by throwing the possible flaws back onto machine errors that are considered unlikely events." What does this even mean? I am a computer science major and this seems completely random to me. The reference is to an article that mentions that very rarely RAM has an error (which is then likely caught by the hardware / os). This is certainly NOT something that someone using a computer to check proofs would be thinking about. There is a lot of quality to be said about this, but the above is drivel. What about machine programs to check sentential calculus theorems? What about programs designed to derive geometric proofs from axioms?
684:"Formal codification of mathematical theories (as one would ideally expect of any mathematically rigorous technique or pedagogy) will reduce both the scope for misinterpretation of mathematical results (by enabling their precise communication) and will eliminate ambiguity in the description of mathematical material (words cannot be reasonably used to describe complex mathematics arguments – though formal languages, set theories and mathematical symbolism can and do)."
257:
241:
21:
81:
143:
112:
153:
400:) after making edits, paused during the period user Critical made edits, and then CStar took up responding to these edits after the series of user Critical edits ends, as if there is only one user involved, and the user logged out, changed cookies and logged back in. Further, user CStar left a note on
767:
Yes, my idea of a parody of religion (one of many) is the Star Wars religion. How am I on the wrong site, have you established this one as being for
Ukrainians to impose their ideas of English on the world? Boris and Natasha take over Knowledge (XXG), and it turns out they're Muslims, is that it? As
733:
as that adverbial sense is not directly related to the intellectual rigour which the rest of the article is about. This sense of the word is typified by the example "Luke suffered the rigours of the
Padawan training under Yoda's stern guidance". There's some conceptual relation no doubt but not what
835:
Also, I did a google search for the the text, "Hardware memory errors are caused by high-energy radiation from outer space, and can generally be expected to affect one bit of data per month, per gigabyte of DRAM" and could not find anything with that title. I'm assuming from the context the article
338:
It does seem a tad biased to me, though perhaps this is inevitable, as some of the principles involved are widely seen as virtues. In any case, in order to make it more neutral, material would have to be researched and citations gathered to adequately represent opposing points of view.
305:
specifically and was rather disappointed. As it is the comment that mathematical rigour has a history going back to the greeks is simultaneously tantalizing and unfulfilling. Obviously the current paragraph isn't sufficient but I think it's worthwhile to separate it.
319:
This article is biased in favor of rigor. It assumes that rigor is good as opposed to an often unnecessary straightjacket and associates it with concepts like intellectual honesty. This article is prejudiced against "nonrigorous" forms of thinking.
373:), who slapped the "disputed NPoV" sticker on this page, has made his or her first edits tonight (or today) and within less than two hours has attacked eight articles for PoV, including (ironically given the CStar example given on the
768:
long as it's a regular encyclopedia that reports facts and for the
English speaking world, efforts such as you show in the response above will be addressed by others without further action by me. As it should be.
541:
I removed the medical section since it has its own article and is conceptually unrelated to intellectual and medical rigour. I also put in some more section breaks, and hopefully we can find some references.
381:. These were the only "edits" (plus weak justifications on talk pages in the same vein as this one). I don't think the PoV claim has merit. We may ask if this series of attacks is to be taken seriously.
608:
There are other places on the site where automated proof is discussed. Rigour is an in-principle thing, surely. By the way, saying things like "drivel" is against basic conventions of discussion here.
562:
Typing 'Rigor', the correct spelling of the medical terminology, directs the search to this page, the page for 'Rigour/Rigor'. Therefore I suggest a page to disambiguate the two terms.
875:
870:
477:
This is an overly broad declaration. While probably accurate, it lacks the rigour necessary for a blanket statement. ;) I'd modify it with an appended "presummably" or somesuch. --
174:
on
Knowledge (XXG). If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the
211:
885:
201:
643:
Why does this redirect here, when there is no discussion of the term? It's more specific than "intellectual rigor" and deserves a separate treatment. --
588:
264:
126:
880:
176:
910:
895:
701:
I went ahead and made some changes. I tried to simplify what was there and balance the arguments for/against complete mathematical formality.
453:. But I wasn't the perpetrator. This suggestion appears to have been an honest mistake, I consider the matter closed, and it appears that
905:
769:
735:
622:
621:
Hardware error is not supposed to be involved in mechanical proof checking! I cleaned up the text to quit misleading the reader. — DAGwyn
592:
565:
I cannot find any info on creating a disambiguation page so I have left this message for a more experienced user to implement the change.
915:
890:
166:
117:
900:
851:
789:
92:
370:
248:
122:
416:
page, when in fact no such sticker has been placed. Perhaps the irony regarding the
Physical law page is not so ironic.
384:
For the following reasons I am thinking that these pages has been the victim of a tiresome semi-sophisticated troll and
62:
449:
talk page, as well as on the pages of the above mentioned users. It does appear that these pages were as Hu suggests
397:
58:
491:
seems to me a reasonable way to introduce an abbreviated argument; obviously the point can be expanded (more or less
798:(1) extremely thorough, exhaustive, or accurate. (2) (of a rule, system, etc.) strictly applied or adhered to : -->
806:
The Roman
Catholic Church doctrine that in doubtful cases of conscience the strict course is always to be followed.
401:
706:
691:
773:
739:
559:
The term 'Rigour' as in to be rigorous with methodology and the medical term 'Rigor' need to be disambiguated.
626:
596:
98:
80:
839:
749:
I have restored it. If your idea of religion is the film Star Wars, maybe you are on the wrong website.--
66:
847:
669:
654:
609:
527:
496:
328:
294:
478:
702:
687:
569:
362:
321:
302:
290:
57:
is used instead of -ise) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other
366:
786:
158:
843:
816:
754:
413:
409:
405:
344:
20:
836:
would argue that the phenomenon described relates back to the idea of "rigorous proofs"?
543:
446:
427:
393:
374:
33:
29:
572:
256:
240:
864:
644:
512:
Mathematical rigour is often cited as a kind of gold standard for mathematical proof.
378:
327:
No, I don't think so. There are qualifications throughout. I shall remove the tag.
307:
474:"on the grounds that we, none of us, can entirely master our own presuppositions"
812:
750:
340:
426:
I've responded to this in various user talk pages, but most extensively in the
458:
431:
389:
386:
the PoV sticker should be removed sooner rather than later, if not immediately
171:
148:
517:
293:. I don't see this as an improvement, and suggest it be redirected again.
799:
adhering strictly to a belief, opinion, or system (3) (of weather) harsh.
726:
454:
417:
170:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to
142:
111:
552:
Disambiguation
Required Between terms 'Rigor' and 'Rigour/Rigor'
289:
I see the final para has been made a separate duplicate page at
74:
15:
855:
820:
777:
758:
743:
710:
695:
686:
The whole section on mathematical rigor needs some cleanup.
672:
657:
647:
630:
612:
600:
546:
530:
520:
499:
481:
348:
255:
239:
805:
extreme strictness in interpreting a law or principle : -->
734:
this article is about. They're both "hard stuff" I guess.
412:
pointing to a supposed PoV accusation placed on the
785:, 10th edition, pub Oxford University Press, 2002,
729:, too, may be worn lightly, or applied with rigour.
222:
682:This sentence is long, unwieldy, and opinionated:
876:Knowledge (XXG) articles that use British English
871:Knowledge (XXG) articles that use Oxford spelling
451:the victim of a tiresome semi-sophisticated troll
668:The software section should be on its own page.
717:Equivocation/Conflation with different quality
285:separate duplicate page on mathematical rigour
8:
180:about philosophy content on Knowledge (XXG).
301:I actually came here looking for a page on
78:
837:
219:
106:
551:
108:
186:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Philosophy
65:, this should not be changed without
7:
164:This article is within the scope of
97:It is of interest to the following
886:Mid-importance Philosophy articles
14:
831:The link to reference 4 is broken
783:Concise Oxford English Dictionary
445:I have responded to this on the
151:
141:
110:
79:
19:
881:Start-Class Philosophy articles
206:This article has been rated as
189:Template:WikiProject Philosophy
911:Mid-importance ethics articles
357:About Users Critical and CStar
1:
896:Mid-importance logic articles
696:12:34, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
678:Opinion in mathematical rigor
526:No, it isn't. It's a remark.
653:Please add something, then.
631:11:52, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
547:04:34, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
516:This is not a definition. --
506:What is Mathematical rigour?
349:16:09, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
906:Start-Class ethics articles
711:19:00, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
673:09:24, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
658:09:24, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
648:02:56, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
613:09:23, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
573:15:53, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
531:13:28, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
521:10:54, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
402:Charles Matthew's talk page
932:
916:Ethics task force articles
891:Start-Class logic articles
856:06:16, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
821:19:10, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
778:12:27, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
759:06:23, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
744:05:43, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
601:05:27, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
212:project's importance scale
901:Logic task force articles
581:What does this even mean?
500:08:24, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
482:04:24, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
361:For the record, the user
297:13:52, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
263:
247:
218:
205:
136:
105:
420:05:18, 2004 Dec 1 (UTC)
461:01:38, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
434:17:26, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
331:08:46, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
223:Associated task forces:
731:
260:
244:
167:WikiProject Philosophy
87:This article is rated
723:
591:comment was added by
489:...on the grounds ...
259:
243:
91:on Knowledge (XXG)'s
388:. We may note that
63:relevant style guide
59:varieties of English
430:talk page. Thanks!
303:mathematical rigour
291:mathematical rigour
192:Philosophy articles
61:. According to the
470:On presuppositions
410:Angela's talk page
406:Chalst's talk page
261:
245:
177:general discussion
93:content assessment
858:
842:comment added by
604:
282:
281:
278:
277:
274:
273:
270:
269:
159:Philosophy portal
73:
72:
923:
670:Charles Matthews
655:Charles Matthews
639:Scientific rigor
610:Charles Matthews
586:
528:Charles Matthews
497:Charles Matthews
414:Logical argument
329:Charles Matthews
295:Charles Matthews
230:
220:
194:
193:
190:
187:
184:
161:
156:
155:
154:
145:
138:
137:
132:
129:
114:
107:
90:
84:
83:
75:
26:This article is
23:
16:
931:
930:
926:
925:
924:
922:
921:
920:
861:
860:
833:
719:
703:Triathematician
688:Triathematician
680:
666:
641:
587:—The preceding
583:
554:
539:
508:
472:
447:logical fallacy
428:logical fallacy
375:Logical fallacy
359:
317:
287:
228:
191:
188:
185:
182:
181:
157:
152:
150:
130:
120:
88:
67:broad consensus
34:Oxford spelling
30:British English
12:
11:
5:
929:
927:
919:
918:
913:
908:
903:
898:
893:
888:
883:
878:
873:
863:
862:
832:
829:
828:
827:
826:
825:
824:
823:
809:
808:
807:
800:
770:76.180.168.166
762:
761:
736:76.180.168.166
718:
715:
714:
713:
679:
676:
665:
662:
661:
660:
640:
637:
636:
635:
634:
633:
623:71.121.204.138
616:
615:
593:66.112.230.151
582:
579:
577:
553:
550:
538:
535:
534:
533:
515:
507:
504:
503:
502:
471:
468:
467:
466:
465:
464:
463:
462:
457:does as well.
438:
437:
436:
435:
358:
355:
354:
353:
352:
351:
333:
332:
316:
313:
312:
311:
308:Robert Van Dam
286:
283:
280:
279:
276:
275:
272:
271:
268:
267:
262:
252:
251:
246:
236:
235:
233:
231:
225:
224:
216:
215:
208:Mid-importance
204:
198:
197:
195:
163:
162:
146:
134:
133:
131:Mid‑importance
115:
103:
102:
96:
85:
71:
70:
24:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
928:
917:
914:
912:
909:
907:
904:
902:
899:
897:
894:
892:
889:
887:
884:
882:
879:
877:
874:
872:
869:
868:
866:
859:
857:
853:
849:
845:
841:
830:
822:
818:
814:
810:
804:
801:
797:
794:
793:
791:
790:0-19-860572-2
788:
784:
781:
780:
779:
775:
771:
766:
765:
764:
763:
760:
756:
752:
748:
747:
746:
745:
741:
737:
730:
728:
722:
716:
712:
708:
704:
700:
699:
698:
697:
693:
689:
685:
677:
675:
674:
671:
663:
659:
656:
652:
651:
650:
649:
646:
638:
632:
628:
624:
620:
619:
618:
617:
614:
611:
607:
606:
605:
602:
598:
594:
590:
580:
578:
575:
574:
571:
566:
563:
560:
557:
549:
548:
545:
536:
532:
529:
525:
524:
523:
522:
519:
513:
505:
501:
498:
494:
490:
486:
485:
484:
483:
480:
475:
469:
460:
456:
452:
448:
444:
443:
442:
441:
440:
439:
433:
429:
425:
424:
423:
422:
421:
419:
415:
411:
407:
403:
399:
398:contributions
395:
391:
387:
382:
380:
376:
372:
371:contributions
368:
364:
356:
350:
346:
342:
337:
336:
335:
334:
330:
326:
325:
324:
323:
314:
309:
304:
300:
299:
298:
296:
292:
284:
266:
258:
254:
253:
250:
242:
238:
237:
234:
232:
227:
226:
221:
217:
213:
209:
203:
200:
199:
196:
179:
178:
173:
169:
168:
160:
149:
147:
144:
140:
139:
135:
128:
124:
119:
116:
113:
109:
104:
100:
94:
86:
82:
77:
76:
68:
64:
60:
56:
52:
48:
44:
40:
36:
35:
31:
25:
22:
18:
17:
838:— Preceding
834:
802:
795:
782:
732:
724:
720:
683:
681:
667:
642:
584:
576:
567:
564:
561:
558:
555:
540:
511:
509:
492:
488:
479:24.22.227.53
476:
473:
450:
385:
383:
379:Physical law
377:talk page),
360:
318:
288:
207:
175:
165:
99:WikiProjects
54:
53:; note that
50:
47:organization
46:
42:
38:
27:
844:BuddhaBubba
792:page 1233:
310:23 Apr 2005
89:Start-class
28:written in
865:Categories
544:SilverStar
487:Well, OK.
315:rigor bias
183:Philosophy
172:philosophy
118:Philosophy
796:Rigourous
852:contribs
840:unsigned
803:Rigorism
727:religion
721:removed
664:Software
645:Belg4mit
589:unsigned
570:Mad macs
363:Critical
322:Critical
537:Cleanup
408:, and
210:on the
51:analyse
43:realize
813:Toddy1
751:Toddy1
493:ad lib
341:Jergas
265:Ethics
127:Ethics
95:scale.
39:colour
459:CSTAR
432:CSTAR
390:CStar
249:Logic
123:Logic
32:with
848:talk
817:talk
787:ISBN
774:talk
755:talk
740:talk
707:talk
692:talk
627:talk
597:talk
556:Hi,
518:Jtir
394:talk
367:talk
345:talk
55:-ize
495:).
202:Mid
867::
854:)
850:•
819:)
811:--
776:)
757:)
742:)
725:A
709:)
694:)
629:)
599:)
568:--
542:--
455:Hu
418:Hu
404:,
396:,
369:,
347:)
229:/
125:/
121::
49:,
45:,
41:,
846:(
815:(
772:(
753:(
738:(
705:(
690:(
625:(
603:.
595:(
514:"
510:"
392:(
365:(
343:(
214:.
101::
69:.
37:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
