1,792
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 69:
Line 69: + +
→Definition of Elementary proof: I don't understand these significant advantages.
:::::::::: Academic mathematicians, as in other academic fields, are in denial about many things: gender differences, religious truth, the value of self-criticism, and the bankruptcy of liberal politics. Wikipedia denied the concept of "elementary proof" entirely until I listed it as an example of its [[Bias in Wikipedia]], and now Wikipedians deny the significance of the concept. Feel free to continue to your discussion there, but I'm going to stick with logic and truth here. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:20, 25 August 2009 (EDT)
:::::::::: Academic mathematicians, as in other academic fields, are in denial about many things: gender differences, religious truth, the value of self-criticism, and the bankruptcy of liberal politics. Wikipedia denied the concept of "elementary proof" entirely until I listed it as an example of its [[Bias in Wikipedia]], and now Wikipedians deny the significance of the concept. Feel free to continue to your discussion there, but I'm going to stick with logic and truth here. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:20, 25 August 2009 (EDT)
I don't understand these significant advantages. No proof ever assumes that there is a unique, algebraically manipulable square root of negative one. There are two such roots, and there is no need to assume anything because the proofs are given in field theory textbooks. Elementary proofs are not necessarily any harder to simplify. A sophicated non-elementary proof might be only 2 lines long, and thus impossible to simplify except by removing reliance on other work. The axiom of choice is not any less rigorous than any other axiom. The whole article is nonsensical. You seem to want to suggest that some proofs are more rigorous than other proofs, but that is just not true at all. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 22:27, 26 August 2009 (EDT)