david petry <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> Here's what I actually believe: Falsifiability, which is the > cornerstone of scientific reasoning, can be formalized in such a way > that it can serve as the cornerstone of mathematical reasoning. And > in fact, it's already part of the reasoning used by applied > mathematicians; ZFC, which is not compatible with falsifiability, is > not a formalization of the mathematical reasoning used in applied > mathematics. Also, Godel's proof is not compatible with > falsifiability.
You say that falsifiability is "already part of the reasoning used by applied mathematicians."
What do you mean? Can you find any applied mathematicians who say that they use falsifiability as a demarcation between mathematics and non-mathematics?
In fact, can you find any applied mathematician who insists that he uses purely finitist mathematics, none of that fancy analysis which, for the most part, has been clearly developed only in the presence of infinite sets?
-- Jesse F. Hughes "I thought it relevant to inform that I notified the FBI a couple of months ago about some of the math issues I've brought up here." -- James S. Harris gives Special Agent Fox a new assignment.