Mathematical proofs in practice: revisiting the reliability of published mathematical proofs

DOI10.1387/THEORIA.10758MaRDI QIDQ3187718zbMATH OpenOpenAlexFDO

Authors Joachim Frans, Laszlo Kosolosky

Publication date 2 September 2016

Published in THEORIA. An International Journal for Theory, History and Foundations of Science (Search for Journal in Brave)

Copyright license Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International

Full work available at URL https://doi.org/10.1387/theoria.10758

zbMATH Keywords

absolutismfallibilismpublication process

Mathematics Subject Classification ID

Methodology of mathematics (00A35) Reasoning and proving in the mathematics classroom (97E50)

Recommendations

• Peer review and knowledge by testimony in mathematics
• Reliability of mathematical inference
• Reshaping the metaphor of proof
• scientific article; zbMATH DE number 2152637
• scientific article; zbMATH DE number 4053534

Cited in

(9)

• Acceptable gaps in mathematical proofs
• Reliability of mathematical inference
• Why the Naïve Derivation Recipe Model Cannot Explain How Mathematicians’ Proofs Secure Mathematical Knowledge
• Peer review and knowledge by testimony in mathematics
• Truth, proof, and reproducibility: there's no counter-attack for the codeless
• Challenges to the assessment of time-to-proof of mathematical conjectures
• Sources for myths about mathematics. On the significance of the difference between finished mathematics and mathematics-in-the-making
• The role of testimony in mathematics
• Going to the source(s) of sources in mathematicians' drafts

This page was built for publication: Mathematical proofs in practice: revisiting the reliability of published mathematical proofs

Report a bug (only for logged in users!)Click here to report a bug for this page (MaRDI item Q3187718)