Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that Non-standard real analysis can prove results in real analysis that were not first proven by standard real analysis methods.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
2 perspectives
Reason for 1 of 2
?
1.
Historical priority of discovery does not establish logical or mathematical independence of the method used.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Robinson's 1966 non-standard proofs of results like the Bernstein-Robinson theorem were rapidly given standard reformulations by Halmos and others.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
A result 'first proven' by non-standard means but immediately translatable into standard means reveals a sociological fact, not a mathematical one about the claim's provability.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reason for 2 of 2
?
1.
Any theorem provable via non-standard analysis is provable via standard analysis by the transfer principle (Łoś's theorem).
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
If standard proofs always exist for every non-standard result, non-standard methods yield no genuinely novel theorems, only novel proofs.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
There are cases of results in real analysis that were first proven using non-standard real analysis.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Next step
Based on where you are in your exploration
Strongest counterpoint
Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.