Reader Comments
Post a new comment on this article
Post Your Discussion Comment
Please follow our guidelines for comments and review our competing interests policy. Comments that do not conform to our guidelines will be promptly removed and the user account disabled. The following must be avoided:
- Remarks that could be interpreted as allegations of misconduct
- Unsupported assertions or statements
- Inflammatory or insulting language
Thank You!
Thank you for taking the time to flag this posting; we review flagged postings on a regular basis.
closeHow to define an obviousness?
Posted by rotacidni on 16 Apr 2010 at 21:00 GMT
This article claims that it is not obvious in math. In fact, it is obvious in bio. But, math itself is not obvious language. Therefore, this paper basically produce a proof of an un-obvious event using an unobvious language, which is obvious in some obvious language.
RE: How to define an obviousness?
ilya_shmulevich replied to rotacidni on 18 Apr 2010 at 06:13 GMT
this is a great paper. My short response to your comment is: the mathematical model constitutes the object of
our knowledge.
Henri Poincaré (The Foundations of Science):
Does the harmony which human intelligence thinks it discovers in Nature exist apart from such intelligence? Assuredly no. A reality completely independent of the spirit that conceives it, sees it or feels it, is an impossibility. A world so external as that, even if it existed, would be forever inaccessible to us. What we call "objective reality" is, strictly speaking, that which is common to several thinking beings and might be common to all; this common part, we shall see, can only be the harmony expressed by mathematical laws.