Post #2599028
2026-05-04 22:22 UTC
@pigworker@types.pl
When you just know that something is true, and then you battle with your mind, with your proof assistant, or your literal backboard, or you paper notebook, or your brain in the shower.
This is the *genetic* way. You just "see" things before you can justify them. And they turn out to be true.
Then there are at least two ways of writing them: the genetic one (how they came to your mind) or the logical one (start from first principles getting a different explanation than what your mid first suggested to you intuitively).
Which then may need you to look at the logical order of things. But you first have your idea independently of any logical order, and, indeed, independently of any logic at all.
I believe this, no matter how competent I am in "logic". It is the intuitive ideas that drive things forward. Of course you need to be competent in (intuitive) logic, but this is not enough.
Replies (1)
-
@pigworker@types.pl 2026-05-04 23:12
@MartinEscardo@mathstodon.xyz I get this distinction and am sympathetic to it. I'm not sure I like the termiology. I hope you will see why "genetic" is a little too close to "biological" for me to feel comfortable. We "discover" things by inventing them. We invent lots of things. Most of them are shit. Those which are not we "discover".