Probabilistic Proofs and Transferability Academic Article uri icon

abstract

  • In a series of papers, Don Fallis points out that although mathematicians are generally unwilling to accept merely probabilistic proofs, they do accept proofs that are incomplete, long and complicated, or partly carried out by computers. He argues that there are no epistemic grounds on which probabilistic proofs can be rejected while these other proofs are accepted. I defend the practice by presenting a property I call 'transferability', which probabilistic proofs lack and acceptable proofs have. I also consider what this says about the similarities between mathematics and, on the one hand natural sciences, and on the other hand philosophy. © The Author [2008]. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved.

altmetric score

  • 0.5

author list (cited authors)

  • Easwaran, K.

citation count

  • 20

publication date

  • October 2009