|
|
|
|
|
|
by layer8
77 days ago
|
|
|
> You can understand something without rigor but you cannot prove it. I think I disagree. There are formal proofs and informal proofs, there are rigorous proofs and less rigorous proofs. Of course, a rigorous proof requires rigor, but that’s close to tautological. What makes a proof is that it convinces other people that the consequent is true. Rigor isn’t a necessary condition for that. |
|
|