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 12:58 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.
> You need to explain them in informal intuitive terms.  Mathematics is
> that which we all agree on simply by thinking.  Mathematics is the
> science that doesn't use the 5 senses.  Definitions like these show us
> what mathematics really is.

Yes, and how is that different from the definition above (I mean in
spirit of course).
I said Analytic doesn't need external observation input to know their
truth. Are you reading what is written or just making comments in the

By the way literally speaking your definition include number 5 which
is a legitimate piece of mathematics, so it is defining mathematics
after itself, it is circular (as written), of course you can simply
overcome that by simply naming the five senses. But this definition is
Trivial, you need a better one along the same general line, which I've
given here.

> Saying that mathematics is sets or numbers or quantities etc.

This definition didn't mention any of those or the alike, show me
where I've encountered any of those in my definition???


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.