> I don't know, and if you really want to know, you could try > asking him. But perhaps he is only saying, "the axioms > of group theory define an interesting set of structures, which > I can construct, and which help me answer questions about physics, > while the axioms of set theory only help me study set theory, > which is not where the real value of mathematics is."
The Heine-Borel theorem is awfully useful for developing real analysis. Is it a good thing or a bad one in Norm's view to have a system strong enough to prove it? How the hell can anyone know, unless he bites the bullet and says what he thinks you can assume?