Bumped by Community user
    Bumped by Community user
    Bumped by Community user
2 added 530 characters in body
source | link

I was just pondering as a mathematics major, is there a particular instance where a mathematician's work doe NOT require agreements among peer scholars of mathematics to determine the quality of the knowledge being produced in mathematics?

I do think that mathematics does not require agreements to assess the quality of the knowledge being produced because the mathematics is a self evident and standing subject. But also I am curious on what the arguments may be because despite my already posted question I am still confused with the question:

"why wouldn't mathematics require consensus for determining the quality of knowledge?"

Can anyone give me an in depth argument regarding this topic?

Thank you in advance.

EDIT: For instance the quality of knowledge I mean in this particular case refers to how self - evident the logical statements being formed through axiomatic systems which are combined and used in various but appropriate ways. But what I am truly asking is, how can the quality of knowledge in mathematics not be determined by the agreement which comes along with it? In other words, how self evident can mathematics really be, to such an extent that it does not require consensus to determine its validity?

I was just pondering as a mathematics major, is there a particular instance where a mathematician's work doe NOT require agreements among peer scholars of mathematics to determine the quality of the knowledge being produced in mathematics?

I do think that mathematics does not require agreements to assess the quality of the knowledge being produced because the mathematics is a self evident and standing subject. But also I am curious on what the arguments may be because despite my already posted question I am still confused with the question:

"why wouldn't mathematics require consensus for determining the quality of knowledge?"

Can anyone give me an in depth argument regarding this topic?

Thank you in advance.

I was just pondering as a mathematics major, is there a particular instance where a mathematician's work doe NOT require agreements among peer scholars of mathematics to determine the quality of the knowledge being produced in mathematics?

I do think that mathematics does not require agreements to assess the quality of the knowledge being produced because the mathematics is a self evident and standing subject. But also I am curious on what the arguments may be because despite my already posted question I am still confused with the question:

"why wouldn't mathematics require consensus for determining the quality of knowledge?"

Can anyone give me an in depth argument regarding this topic?

Thank you in advance.

EDIT: For instance the quality of knowledge I mean in this particular case refers to how self - evident the logical statements being formed through axiomatic systems which are combined and used in various but appropriate ways. But what I am truly asking is, how can the quality of knowledge in mathematics not be determined by the agreement which comes along with it? In other words, how self evident can mathematics really be, to such an extent that it does not require consensus to determine its validity?

1
source | link

Mathematics and disagreements

I was just pondering as a mathematics major, is there a particular instance where a mathematician's work doe NOT require agreements among peer scholars of mathematics to determine the quality of the knowledge being produced in mathematics?

I do think that mathematics does not require agreements to assess the quality of the knowledge being produced because the mathematics is a self evident and standing subject. But also I am curious on what the arguments may be because despite my already posted question I am still confused with the question:

"why wouldn't mathematics require consensus for determining the quality of knowledge?"

Can anyone give me an in depth argument regarding this topic?

Thank you in advance.