The Math Forum

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

Advanced Search

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

Posts: 2,777
Registered: 12/13/04
Re: Matheology § 224
Posted: Apr 6, 2013 11:36 AM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

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 high-school 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

It's kind of "sad" that since Godel, mathematical _logic_ has
retrograded in progress, in rigidity, back to high school per-calulus

There is no remainder in the mathematics of infinity.


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

[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]

© The Math Forum at NCTM 1994-2018. All Rights Reserved.