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: Matheology § 203
Replies: 4   Last Post: Feb 2, 2013 4:28 PM

Advanced Search

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

Posts: 1,968
Registered: 12/4/12
Re: Matheology § 203
Posted: Feb 2, 2013 4:28 PM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

On 2/2/2013 1:24 PM, Virgil wrote:
> In article
> <37a55e15-deab-4cc3-9497-1915e997705c@k8g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
> WM <mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:
>

>> On 2 Feb., 02:56, Alan Smaill <sma...@SPAMinf.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>>

>>> "The logicist reduction of the concept of natural number met a
>>> difficulty on this point, since the definition of ?natural number¹
>>> already given in the work of Frege and Dedekind is impredicative. More
>>> recently, it has been argued by Michael Dummett, the author, and Edward
>>> Nelson that more informal explanations of the concept of natural number
>>> are impredicative as well. That has the consequence that impredicativity
>>> is more pervasive in mathematics, and appears at lower levels, than the
>>> earlier debates about the issue generally presupposed."

>>
>> I do not agree with these authors on this point.

>>>
>>> So, how on earth do you know that induction is a correct
>>> principle over the natural numbers?

>>
>> If a theorem is valid for the number k, and if from its validity for n
>> + k the validity for n + k + 1 can be concluded with no doubt, then n
>> can be replaced by n + 1, and the validity for n + k + 2 is proven
>> too. This is the foundation of mathematics. To prove anything about
>> this principle is as useless as the proof that 1 + 1 = 2.

>
> That inductive argument appears to be based on the very same flaws that
> WM objects to in allowing actual infiniteness.


It is. That is the whole point of the
quoted article.

In the last statement, WM is reasserting one of
Poincare's observations.

But, the real problem is that everyone is
looking at arithmetical foundations. Frege
retracted his life's work and tried to direct
everyone's attention back to geometry.

What foundational thinkers avoid because of
"circularity" is polarity and duality in
projective geometry. Embrace it. Understand
it. And most of the crap falls away.










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.