Prove—once more and again
Philosophia Mathematica 5 (2):153-165 (1997)
| Abstract | There are two distinct meanings to ‘mathematical proof’. The connection between them is an unsolved problem. The first step in attacking it is noticing that it is an unsolved problem. | |||||||||
| Keywords | No keywords specified (fix it) | |||||||||
| Categories | ||||||||||
| Options |
|
|||||||||
Download options| PhilPapers Archive |
Upload a copy of this paper Check publisher's policy on self-archival Papers currently archived: 5,653 |
| External links |
 |
| Through your library | Configure |
Similar books and articlesAntonio Montalbán (2005). Up to Equimorphism, Hyperarithmetic Is Recursive. Journal of Symbolic Logic 70 (2):360 - 378.
Rodney G. Downey & Steffen Lempp (1997). Contiguity and Distributivity in the Enumerable Turing Degrees. Journal of Symbolic Logic 62 (4):1215-1240.
Zach Weber (2010). Extensionality and Restriction in Naive Set Theory. Studia Logica 94 (1).
Paul Shafer (2010). Characterizing the Join-Irreducible Medvedev Degrees. Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 52 (1):21-38.
Mateja Jamnik, Alan Bundy & Ian Green (1999). On Automating Diagrammatic Proofs of Arithmetic Arguments. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 8 (3):297-321.
R. A. V. Yehuda (1999). Why Do We Prove Theorems? Philosophia Mathematica 7 (1).
Stéphane Demri (1997). A Completeness Proof for a Logic with an Alternative Necessity Operator. Studia Logica 58 (1):99-112.
Analytics
Monthly downloads |
Added to index2009-01-28Total downloads10 ( #106,175 of 548,984 )Recent downloads (6 months)2 ( #37,320 of 548,984 )How can I increase my downloads? |
My notes
Discussion
