>Patricia Shanahan wrote: >> Ultimately, I don't think the subject of this thread even asks the right >> question. It should be "Set theory: Should you use?". I don't even know >> what it means to believe set theory. > >It means you think the axioms of set theory are true, i.e. that you >think that for every set its power set exists, the union of any set >exists, and so forth. If you don't, what right do you have to go about >claiming that e.g. there are no positive naturals a,b,c,n s.t. a^{n+2} + >b^{n+2} = c^{n+2} on basis of a set theoretical proof? > >I recommend we all read again Torkel Franzén's splendid exposition of >these issues in his PhD thesis Truth and Provability!
Well from first hand experience I'd have guessed Torkel was more concerned with fnoffling. At least in my case since he never leveled any critical arguments against my views on truth and provability.
