Upcoming Events
-
Oct
3
Actuarial Science Seminar
Risk Allocation Through Shapley Decompositions with Applications to Variable Annuities
Frederic Godin (Concordia University)11:00am -
Oct
3
Control and Optimization Seminar
Analysis of a Finite State Many Player Game Using its Master Equation
Asaf Cohen (University of Michigan)2:00pm -
Oct
5
Algebra Seminar
Cluster algebras and knot theory
Ralf Schiffler (University of Connecticut)11:15am -
Oct
5
Math Club
Computationally Hard Problems and Their Uses in Cryptography
Asimina Hamakiotes (UConn)5:30pmMath Club
Computationally Hard Problems and Their Uses in Cryptography
Asimina Hamakiotes (UConn)Wednesday, October 5th, 2022
05:30 PM - 06:30 PM
Storrs Campus Monteith 214
Cryptography is the practice and study of techniques used for secure communication in the presence of adverse third parties. Although cryptography is of interest to computer scientists, there is a lot of mathematics being done behind the scenes. In this talk, we will explain the difference between private key cryptography and public key cryptography. We will also talk about some computationally hard math problems that are used in public key cryptography.
Note: Free refreshments. The talk starts at 5:40. -
Oct
7
Logic Colloquium: Zoe Ashton (OSU)11:15am
Logic Colloquium: Zoe Ashton (OSU)
Friday, October 7th, 2022
11:15 AM - 12:45 PM
Storrs Campus Hybrid: ITE 336 & Zoom
Join us in the Logic Colloquium!
Zoe Ashton (OSU)
"How the Standard View of Rigor and the Standard Practice of Mathematics Clash"
Mathematical proofs are rigorous – it’s part of what distinguishes proofs from other argument types. But the quality of rigor, relatively simple for the trained mathematician to spot, is difficult to explicate. The most common view, often referred to as the standard view of rigor, is that “a mathematical proof is rigorous iff it can be converted into a formal derivation” (Burgess & De Toffoli (2022)). Each proponent of the standard view interprets “conversion” differently. For some, like Hamami (2022), conversion means algorithmic translation while others, like Burgess (2015), interpret it as just revealing enough steps of the formal derivation.
In this talk, I aim to present an overarching concern for the standard view. I’ll argue that no extant version of the standard view makes sense of how mathematicians make rigor judgments. Both Hamami (2022) and Tatton-Brown (2021) have both attempted to account for mathematicians’ rigor judgments using the standard view. I’ll argue that both still fail to adequately account for mathematical practice by positing that mathematicians engage in either algorithmic proof search and/or extensive training in formal rigor.
We seem to be left with two options: continue trying to amend the standard view or introduce a new account of rigor which is practice-focused. I’ll argue that issues with the two accounts are general issues that will likely occur for future formulations of the standard view. Thus, we should aim to introduce a new account of informal, mathematical rigor. I’ll close by sketching a new account of rigor related to the audience-based view of proof introduced in Ashton (2021).
https://logic.uconn.edu/calendar/
