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: Then answer to Frege's two objections to formalism.
Replies: 17   Last Post: Apr 9, 2013 7:56 AM

Advanced Search

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

Posts: 2,665
Registered: 6/29/07
Re: Then answer to Frege's two objections to formalism.
Posted: Apr 7, 2013 12:51 AM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

On Apr 7, 7:05 am, Charlie-Boo <> wrote:
> On Apr 5, 10:22 am, fom <> wrote:

> > On 4/5/2013 8:47 AM, Zuhair wrote:
> > > On Apr 5, 2:25 pm, Zuhair <> 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

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

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

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?


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.