Search All of the Math Forum:
Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by
NCTM or The Math Forum.


Math Forum
»
Discussions
»
sci.math.*
»
sci.math
Notice: We are no longer accepting new posts, but the forums will continue to be readable.
Topic:
Re: Matheology § 224
Replies:
10
Last Post:
Apr 7, 2013 3:27 PM




Re: Matheology § 224
Posted:
Apr 6, 2013 11:36 AM


On 06/04/2013 9:15 AM, Peter Percival wrote: > Nam Nguyen wrote: > >> In any rate do you agree that my statement: >> >> >>> But if GC is undecidable in PA, there's no proof left in FOL but >> >>> _structure theoretically verifying_ the truth value of GC in >> >> is correct? > > No, a little upstream I wrote > > If the Goldbach conjecture is undecidable in PA then it is true. > > which is a quite uncontroversial claim.
Well then one can't expect a fruitful argument about mathematical _logic_ matters with those whose counter reasoning is based on such a basis as "uncontroversial claim".
It kind of reminds me the time when I was in highschool arguing with my friends about the motion paradox (Zeno paradox) and when we (I included) got stuck in convincing the others, we used the _arguments_ like:
 "but it's so clear that ..."  "you must admit that ..."  "it's so true beyond any doubt that ..."
(We were not taking calculus then, btw).
No. "Uncontroversial claim" doesn't cut it, doesn't cut a controversial "knowledge".
It's kind of "sad" that since Godel, mathematical _logic_ has retrograded in progress, in rigidity, back to high school percalulus "rigorousness".
  There is no remainder in the mathematics of infinity.
NYOGEN SENZAKI 



