Proofs, Reliable Processes, and Justification in Mathematics

Although there exists today a variety of non-deductive reliable processes able to determine the truth of certain mathematical propositions, proof remains the only form of justification accepted in mathematical practice. Some philosophers and mathematicians have contested this commonly accepted epistemic superiority of proof on the ground that mathematicians are fallible: when the deductive method is carried out by a fallible agent, then it comes with its own level of reliability, and so might happen to be equally or even less reliable than existing non-deductive reliable processes—I will refer to this as the reliability argument. The aim of this paper is to examine whether the reliability argument forces us to reconsider the commonly accepted epistemic superiority of the deductive method over non-deductive reliable processes. I will argue that the reliability argument is fundamentally correct, but that there is another epistemic property differentiating the deductive method from non-deductive reliable processes. This property is based on the observation that, although mathematicians are fallible agents, they are also self-correcting agents. This means that when a proof is produced which only contains repairable mistakes, given enough time and energy, a mathematician or a group thereof should be able to converge towards a correct proof through a finite number of verification and correction rounds, thus providing a guarantee that the considered proposition is true, something that non-deductive reliable processes will never be able to produce. From this perspective, the standard of justification adopted in mathematical practice should be read in a diachronic way: the demand is not that any proof that is ever produced be correct—which would amount to require that mathematicians are infallible—but rather that, over time, proofs that contain repairable mistakes be corrected, and proofs that cannot be repaired be rejected. ∗Centre for Logic and Philosophy of Science, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Brussels, Belgium. Email: yacin.hamami@gmail.com. Website: www.yacinhamami.com.

[1]  Jeremy Avigad,et al.  Formally verified mathematics , 2014, Commun. ACM.

[2]  W. Thurston On Proof and Progress in Mathematics , 1994, math/9404236.

[3]  Jeremy Avigad,et al.  Computers in Mathematical Inquiry , 2008 .

[4]  J. Borwein,et al.  The quest for PI , 1997 .

[5]  Probabilistic Proofs and the Collective Epistemic Goals of Mathematicians , 2010 .

[6]  Gary L. Miller,et al.  Riemann's Hypothesis and tests for primality , 1975, STOC.

[8]  Jonathan M. Borwein,et al.  Implications of Experimental Mathematics for the Philosophy of Mathematics , 2008 .

[9]  J. Grcar Errors and Corrections in Mathematics Literature , 2013 .

[10]  Don Fallis,et al.  The Reliability of Randomized Algorithms , 2000, The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science.

[11]  Jonathan M. Borwein,et al.  Mathematics by experiment - plausible reasoning in the 21st century , 2003 .

[12]  M. Rabin Probabilistic algorithm for testing primality , 1980 .

[13]  Alexander Paseau,et al.  Knowledge of Mathematics without Proof , 2015, The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science.

[14]  P. J. Heawood Map-Colour Theorem , 1949 .

[15]  T. Hales The Kepler conjecture , 1998, math/9811078.

[16]  W. G. Bickley Mechanization of Mathematics , 1950, Nature.

[17]  A. Kempe On the Geographical Problem of the Four Colours , 1879 .

[18]  H. K. Sørensen Exploratory experimentation in experimental mathematics : A glimpse at the PSLQ algorithm , 2010 .

[19]  Simon Singh,et al.  Fermat's last theorem : the story of a riddle that confounded the world's greatest minds for 358 years , 1997 .

[20]  Jeffrey C. Jackson,et al.  Randomized Arguments are Transferable , 2009 .

[21]  Proof, reliability, and mathematical knowledge , 2008 .

[22]  Russ Bubley,et al.  Randomized algorithms , 1995, CSUR.

[23]  A. Baker Non-Deductive Methods In Mathematics , 2009 .

[24]  David H. Bailey,et al.  Parallel integer relation detection: Techniques and applications , 2001, Math. Comput..

[25]  David H. Bailey,et al.  Analysis of PSLQ, an integer relation finding algorithm , 1999, Math. Comput..

[26]  A. Bird When is There a Group that Knows?: Distributed Cognition, Scientific Knowledge, and the Social Epistemic Subject , 2014 .

[27]  K. Easwaran Probabilistic Proofs and Transferability , 2009 .

[28]  Mark McEvoy Experimental mathematics, computers and the a priori , 2011, Synthese.

[29]  D. Fallis The Epistemic Status of Probabilistic Proof , 1997 .

[30]  D. Fallis What Do Mathematicians Want? Probabilistic Proofs and the Epistemic Goals of Mathematicians , 2003 .

[31]  David Bailey,et al.  On the rapid computation of various polylogarithmic constants , 1997, Math. Comput..

[32]  Monika Richter,et al.  Cognition In The Wild , 2016 .

[33]  Martin Smith Between Probability and Certainty: What Justifies Belief , 2016 .

[34]  E. B. Davies TOWARDS A PHILOSOPHY OF REAL MATHEMATICS , 2011 .