This is the authors' abstract. We don't add key points for this paper.
In a 2022 paper, Hamami claimed that the orthodox view in mathematics is that a proof is rigorous if it can be translated into a derivation. Hamami then developed a descriptive account that explains how mathematicians check proofs for rigor in this sense and how they develop the capacity to do so. By exploring introductory texts in computability theory, we demonstrate that Hamami’s descriptive account does not accord with actual mathematical practice with respect to computability theory. We argue instead for an alternative account in which imagination, anticipation, and interpretations of natural language play roles in establishing mathematical rigor.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Keith Weber (2022) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: