Drexel dragonThe Math ForumDonate to the Math Forum



Search All of the Math Forum:

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


Math Forum » Discussions » sci.math.* » sci.math

Topic: ZFC really really really sucks -- really!
Replies: 20   Last Post: Jan 20, 2013 6:30 AM

Advanced Search

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List Jump to Tree View Jump to Tree View   Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
Virgil

Posts: 8,833
Registered: 1/6/11
Re: ZFC really really really sucks -- really!
Posted: Jan 7, 2013 4:33 PM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

In article <0455b6ea-5e9c-4ad3-b5b1-1f284523226a@googlegroups.com>,
david petry <david_lawrence_petry@yahoo.com> wrote:

> An article by Nic Weaver is worth a read:
>
> http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0905/0905.1680v1.pdf
>
>
> Here's a quote:
>
> "An essential incorporation of impredicative mathematics in basic physics
> would involve a revolutionary shift in our understanding of physical reality
> of a magnitude which would dwarf the passage from classical to quantum
> mechanics [...} the likelihood of ZFC turning out to be inconsistent [is]
> much higher than the likelihood of it turning out to be essential to basic
> physics. The assumption that set-theoretically substantial mathematics is of
> any use in
> current science is simply false"
>
> By "impredicative mathematics", he means mathematics with the powerset axiom.
>
> I actually think Weaver misses the essential point, which is this:
>
> The notion of falsifiability, which is the cornerstone of science, can be
> formalized in such a way that it can be made the cornerstone of mathematics,
> and it is eminently reasonable to do so; if we don't accept falsifiability
> as part of the underlying logic of our mathematics, then our mathematics is
> deficient as a language for science. Impredicative mathematics is not
> compatible with falsifiability.
>
> The conclusion is that the claim that it is even remotely possible that
> impredicative mathematics (e.g. ZFC) has an essential role to play in science
> is a truly extraordinary claim that requires truly extraordinary evidence,
> and such evidence is woefully lacking.
>
> ZFC is crackpot mathematics.


ZFC may well be crackpot as science, but there is no requirement that I
am aware of that mathematics be subservient to science or even relevant
to science.

Scientists, in particular physicists, often treat mathematics as if it
were their private property, but to many mathematicians, like G. H.
Hardy, the best of mathematics was quite untainted by use in physics.
--





Point your RSS reader here for a feed of the latest messages in this topic.

[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]

© Drexel University 1994-2014. All Rights Reserved.
The Math Forum is a research and educational enterprise of the Drexel University School of Education.