. Math can make successful predictions, ergo, it’s probably true.
So if someone (A) pubishes a proof of theorem T in a maths journal, it isnt actually true until someone else shows that it corresponds to reality in a lab, and publishes that in a science journal?
Or maybe (B) all we need is for some theorems of it to work, in which case we can batrack and suppose the axioms are correct, and then foreward-track to all the theorems derivable from those axioms, which is a much larger set than those known to corresopond to reality?
No one has ever seen an infinite set, ergo, they probably don’t exist,
So if someone (A) pubishes a proof of theorem T in a maths journal, it isnt actually true until someone else shows that it corresponds to reality in a lab, and publishes that in a science journal?
Or maybe (B) all we need is for some theorems of it to work, in which case we can batrack and suppose the axioms are correct, and then foreward-track to all the theorems derivable from those axioms, which is a much larger set than those known to corresopond to reality?
I havent seen e, i, pi or 23 either.