From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 109fba,1042f393323e22da X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,1042f393323e22da X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: 1014db,1042f393323e22da X-Google-Attributes: gid1014db,public From: atbowler@thinkage.on.ca (Alan Bowler) Subject: Re: Software Engineering is not a hoax... Date: 1997/05/28 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 244542036 Sender: news@thinkage.on.ca References: <5mc1a2$icf$1@dbs1.sma.ch> Organization: Thinkage Ltd. Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.c,comp.lang.ada Date: 1997-05-28T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article <5mc1a2$icf$1@dbs1.sma.ch> lga@sma.ch writes: > >Another science (namely mathematics) has been able to codify thinking. I admit >that production of great works has always been a question of creativity. But you >rarely see mathematicians fighting against the Aristotelian principles of logic >(true or false exclusively, no third case; logic of predicates). Maybe. My first year calculus prof refused to cover the proof of the chain rule. He accepted the chain rule, but did not feel the standard proof was valid, and felt we did not have sufficient background to handle the proof he accepted. My 4th year logic prof mentioned some disagreements he had with other schools of logicians. I think the reason that you don't see "mathematicians fighting against the Aristotelian principles" is that they don't consider them "principles", rather, like the chain rule case, they are rules derived from more basic principles, and they do fight over what those are.