Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!yale!cmcl2!husc6!m2c!umvlsi!dime!yodaiken
From: yodaiken@freal.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken)
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Proof theory (was Re: Academic legend)
Message-ID: <9993@dime.cs.umass.edu>
Date: 11 Feb 90 18:24:46 GMT
References: <20433@watdragon.waterloo.edu> <2072@rex.cs.tulane.edu> <19983@netnews.upenn.edu> <1318@oravax.UUCP> <20010@netnews.upenn.edu>
Sender: news@dime.cs.umass.edu
Reply-To: yodaiken@freal.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken)
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst
Lines: 13

In article <20010@netnews.upenn.edu> aaron@grad2.cis.upenn.edu.UUCP (Aaron Watters) writes:
>>Mr. Watters is apparently unaware of the widespread use of proof theory
>>in pure and applied logic.  
>I geuss I am.  I know these people STUDY proof theories -- that's not
>the same as using it.  By `use' I did not mean `prove things about.'
>
>I said `seldom' not `never.'  These uses are hardly widespread
>-- especially not by real mathematicians.  
>	--aaron
>

Look at "Bounded Arithmetic" by Sam Buss (Bibliopolis 1986)
for an iteresting"real mathematic" use of proof theory.