[foobar_]

I'm guessing there was a physical intuition behind the theorem, if you can simulate it you will probably do something better than the proof. Now it's your turn to tell me why 1 + 1 = 2.

[augustt]

Honestly what are you talking about. You can simulate for 100 years without finding a counterexample, but that doesn't make a proof. The whole point of math is to understand why things are true, not to just be satisfied that it seems true.

[foobar_]

The way I see it ... Most mathematicians nowadays use mathematica or matlab or even python, proving my point. The notation is medieval ... and probably the only reason it survives is because of form factors of paper.

> Mathematics is a part of physics. Physics is an experimental science, a part of natural science. Mathematics is the part of physics where experiments are cheap.

https://www.uni-muenster.de/Physik.TP/~munsteg/arnold.html

I see simulating as a part of the experiment. If the proof is wrong it wouldn't last a seconds worth of simulation. I suppose a proof in essence is a pattern or an invariant of the system ... but most proofs have really no meat to them. The notation is merely intimidating like obfuscated code.

[jjgreen]

See Principia Mathematica, A. N. Whitehead and B. Russell, Proposition 110.643

[foobar_]

1 + 1 = 10

[gspr]

> Now it's your turn to tell me why 1 + 1 = 2.

By construction.