|
|
![[parent]](http://images.planetmath.org:8080/images/uparrow.png) Viewing Correction to 'converse'
|
No Such Thing as a "False Theorem"! by fwchapman
Correction id: 14079
Filed on: 2008-08-03 11:24:18
Status: Accepted on 2008-08-03 13:52:14
Type: Erratum
Correction text:
Dear PlanetMath Authors,
Thank you for your article explaining the terms "converse" and "converse theorem." Although I certainly appreciate your article, I need to ask you to make an important correction: A theorem is, by definition, a proven statement; hence, a theorem MUST be true. There is no such thing as a "false theorem."
The terms "converse" and "theorem" are completely independent. The converse of a proposition is defined whether or not the converse happens to be true. If the converse of a theorem is true, then the converse merits the name "converse theorem." As the article correctly points out, the converse of a theorem need not be true; hence, the name "converse theorem" should be reserved ONLY for a converse which is in fact true.
The views I have expressed in this correction are universally held by the mathematical community. Please revise the language in this article to convey these vitally important points.
Thank you,
Dr. Frederick W. Chapman
(PhD in Mathematics, University of Waterloo, 2003) |
Comment from object owner pahio:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
