On 3/17/2013 11:49 AM, WM wrote: > On 17 Mrz., 13:09, fom <fomJ...@nyms.net> wrote: > >> Playing with crayons does nothing to >> account for the apparent successes of >> mathematics with respect to its >> applications. > > Please try to find only 1 (one) single application of set theory - > appart from the jokes mentioned in Kalenderblatt 1053 - 1060 (texts > there are mainly in English). > http://www.hs-augsburg.de/~mueckenh/KB/KB%201001-1111.pdf > > Don't confuse matheology with mathematics!
I understand that you want to argue about beliefs.
As to confusions, why do you think Brouwer's ideal mathematician is pre-linguistic?
At first, I had been willing to defend your statements somewhat because I am aware of Robinson's writings.
Nope. Except for his statements supporting your beliefs concerning infinity there is little in Robinson to support what you are doing.
Although I have spent little time trying to understand constructive mathematics, I owned Sanin's book on Constructive Real Analysis. It had the wrong starting point, so I bought the AMS translation with his referenced paper on constructive logic. This paper had been relying on Markov's "Theory of Algorithms". I purchased that and have finished most of the section up to what I need for Sanin's papers.
In there, Markov explains an appropriate way to implement quantifiers for *given* constructive objects where a prior definition of constructive object had been given.
Nope. Except for his statements expressing interest in potentially *feasible* mathematics there is little in Markov to support what you are doing.
Now I will start looking at Brouwer.
Just the introduction of the text that I chose has me laughing.
We proceed to mathematics according to Nietzchean "will".
So, I ask again...
Why do you think Brouwer's ideal mathematician is pre-linguistic?
And, if I am to relate this in any way to what you are doing, how could any example of text not containing reference to transfinite arithmetic prove anything?