Return to Question

Mathematical systems are an excellent model for organizing and conducting thought:

A conjecture is an unproven claim, while a theorem is a proven claim. A corollary is a claim that follows from another claim. A lemma is a "stepping stone" claim used in constructing another claim.

These could be useful terms for any other subset of argumentation. So, why don't we do the same type of organization and hold ourselves to the same standard?

Math proof = Sound argument

We'd see much of the analogue to: (corollaries of conjectures) because it is much easier to make arguments valid, but the goal (/w the aid of: "Burden of Rejoinder") is sound argument.

Mathematical systems are an excellent model for organizing and conducting thought:

In the mathematics community, any argument in support of a conjecture, that deviates from "sound argument" never flies except by mistake.

Why don't we do the same type of organization and hold ourselves to the same standard?

Math proof = Sound argument

We'd likely see a lot corollaries of conjectures but that's okay if we're in this for the long haul.

Mathematical systems are an excellent model for organizing and conducting thought. A conjecture is an unproven claim, while a theorem is a proven claim. A corollary is a claim that follows from another claim. We can think of the Universe of math as a coliseum for argumentation held to the highest standard.

Math proof = Sound argument

I don't know if there's any real objections to soundness. Why don't we basically do the same thing?

We'd see much of the analogue to: (corollaries of conjectures) because it is much easier to make arguments valid, but the goal (/w the aid of: "Burden of Rejoinder") is sound argument.

Mathematical systems are an excellent model for organizing and conducting thought:

A conjecture is an unproven claim, while a theorem is a proven claim. A corollary is a claim that follows from another claim. A lemma is a "stepping stone" claim used in constructing another claim.

These could be useful terms for any other subset of argumentation. So, why don't we do the same type of organization and hold ourselves to the same standard?

Math proof = Sound argument

We'd see much of the analogue to: (corollaries of conjectures) because it is much easier to make arguments valid, but the goal (/w the aid of: "Burden of Rejoinder") is sound argument.