Search All of the Math Forum:

Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by Drexel University or The Math Forum.

Topic: Essential Consistency
Replies: 21   Last Post: Mar 25, 2012 1:24 PM

 Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
 Zaljohar@gmail.com Posts: 2,664 Registered: 6/29/07
Re: Essential Consistency
Posted: Mar 21, 2012 3:12 PM

On Mar 21, 5:55 pm, MoeBlee <modem...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 21, 12:57 am, Zuhair <zaljo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>

> > On Mar 20, 10:29 pm, MoeBlee <modem...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 19, 3:50 pm, Zuhair <zaljo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > concrete "standard" natural number n.
>
> > > What is the definition of 'concrete'?
> > Standard.
>
> Then you're saying:
>
> standard "standard" natural number
>
> All you need to say is:
>
> natural number
>
> A proof in a system S is a certain kind of finite sequence of
> formulas. And a set (a sequence is a set) is finite if and only if the
> set is 1-1 with a natural number. Natural number. Period. Nothing
>
> And, as I also mentioned, an object is a nonstandard natural only in
> context of some particular ordering of a set that is the universe for
> a model. An object is not just a nonstandard natural number or not a
> nonstandard natural number, but rather, the object is or is not a
> nonstandard natural number PER some given set AND ordering on that
> set.
>
> In this context, there is no gain, except in confusion, in worrying
>
> MoeBlee

The idea is that proofs of non standard natural number length are not
real proofs, they are actually not proofs at all, they are only seen
by the theory in question to be proofs, but externally they are
definitely not proofs. I agree it is confusing. I myself need to look
more into that.

Zuhair