Your English writing platform
Discover LudwigExact(2)
Once individuation of proofs has been settled, we can distinguish between replaceable thinking and superfluous thinking, where these attributions are understood as relative to a given argument or proof.
Superfluous thinking may be extremely valuable in facilitating grasp of the proof text and in enabling one to understand the idea underlying the proof steps; but it is not necessary for thinking through the proof.
Similar(55)
People want movies that make thinking superfluous, that do the thinking for them, that tell them what to think and feel.
Those who commission programmes for the boss-class of women commit the most specious of all the intellectual crimes intrinsic to reality TV, of thinking production superfluous.
With claim (a) disposed of, consider again claim (b) that, while not all diagrammatic thinking in a process of thinking through a proof is superfluous, all non-superfluous diagrammatic thinking will be replaceable by non-diagrammatic thinking in a process of thinking through that same proof.
This opens the possibility that non-superfluous visual thinking may result in a priori knowledge of a mathematical truth.
Such visual thinking may constitute a non-superfluous and non-replaceable part of thinking through a specific proof.
That is enough to refute claim (a), the claim that all diagrammatic thinking in thinking through a proof is superfluous.
Someone comes along and says, "Hey we're going to build a new set and were thinking, let's have a ton of superfluous bookshelves.
The idea behind (a) is that, because diagrammatic reasoning is unreliable, if a process of thinking through an argument contains some non-superfluous diagrammatic thinking, that process lacks the epistemic security to be a case of thinking through a proof.
A given part of the thinking is superfluous if its excision without replacement would be a process of thinking through the same proof.
Write better and faster with AI suggestions while staying true to your unique style.
Since I tried Ludwig back in 2017, I have been constantly using it in both editing and translation. Ever since, I suggest it to my translators at ProSciEditing.

Justyna Jupowicz-Kozak
CEO of Professional Science Editing for Scientists @ prosciediting.com