
Re: Then answer to Frege's two objections to formalism.
Posted:
Apr 7, 2013 12:51 AM


On Apr 7, 7:05 am, CharlieBoo <shymath...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Apr 5, 10:22 am, fom <fomJ...@nyms.net> wrote: > > > On 4/5/2013 8:47 AM, Zuhair wrote: > > > > On Apr 5, 2:25 pm, Zuhair <zaljo...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >> I just want to argue that > > > >> "Mathematics is analytic processing fictional or real" > > 1. All you are doing is substituting synonyms that themselves are not > defined. Define "information" to be "data". Define "mathematics" to > be "the science of quantity". Define "logic" to be "formal systems". > > Do these accomplish anything? No. You are not unlocking the mystery > of mathematics by referring to other terms of mathematics whose only > difference may be that they are at a different level of abstraction  > lower  than what you are defining. > > To "explain" mathematics or logic or formal systems, you need to > define them in terms AS UNMATHEMATICAL AS POSSIBLE. Otherwise you > still have "mathematics"  just more terms. >
Ok tell me how this criticism of yours apply to the definition I've made.
I said Mathematics is "Analytic processing fictional or real"
Leave the word processing since it might be problematic you can easily replace it with
Mathematics is "Analytic statements fictional or real"
Do you think the words "statement" , "fictional" , "real" presuppose mathematics???
Do you think the word "Analytic" uses mathematics in its explanation, does it use numbers? Geometric figures?, groups?, topos?, sets? ...? in its explanation? Can you show me that?
I've explained my terms one after the other, so where in my explanation you found it circular?
Or when I defined "interesting mathematics" as: Pervasive Virtual Analytics.
Where do you see mathematics presupposed in the definition of each of those terms?
Can you show me where there circularity you are alleging is?
Zuhair

