Andrew Bettilyon wrote: > In his web site he identified problems in mathematics, and though it > seems everyone is arguing about whether infinite set theory and other > parts of mathematics are really in err, he attempts to begin a solution > in his book.
If you want to discuss the book then you should start another thread. This thread was founded on the paper that Rupert forwarded.
> I would like to know how well others think his book > solves his stated issues with mathematics.
He states SEVERAL issues. Some of them are legitimate. Most of the ones in the paper are not. It is necessary first to SEPARATE the issues. You should do that by starting another thread QUOTING the positions he takes that YOU find defensible. That would probably end THIS discussion about the philosophical positions he took in the paper, which are simply ignorant.
> Is it accessible to students?
That is irrelevant because OF COURSE it will be accessible. Set theory is accessible and NW doesn't even allege that it isn't. He instead alleges (correctly) that usual treatments don't bother to organize everything else rigorously upon it, as they should, if it is going to be the "foundation".
> Does it make mathematics easier? Is it powerful enough to > deal with real world problems, or can it be expanded to deal with real > world problems?
That is a stupid question. Math is not obligated to deal with any real-world problems, and despite that, it has done so swimmingly. It cannot stop. If the old math dealt with real-world problems then obviously any re-presentation of the SAME mathematical fields in different dialect MUST continue to deal. It is NOT anything optional or opinional. It is QUITE necessary.
> Does it depend on wildly verbose and cryptic > mathematics to justify it's existence,
No. This does not need to be questioned. His definitions canNOT POSSIBLY be significantly more complicated than what is already normal. His whole point is that what we have now is not sufficiently systematically organized.
> or does his definitions satisfy > fundamental requirements?
This is a good question, but vs. NW, it's premature. The prior question is, "Does this fool have the FIRST clue what a DEFINITION even IS?" Most of what he has said about "axioms" and "logicians" would indicate not.
> If his mathematics is a good solution to his stated problem then > don't get mad.
Don't be ridiculous. Half of the "stated problems" he stated in his paper cannot have "math" as solutions. He was whining about the priesthood, not about anybody's math. When he TRIED to make a math-whine about ZFC's definitions of infinity, he totally botched it.