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 3:38 PM
  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:
> 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.

That's EXACTLY what have been done here!

However I want to comment here on the part of your definition that
mentions Mathematics as the science that doesn't use the senses of
hearing,seeing, somatic and visceral senses, smell and taste.

Now although the general line of this definition agrees with what's
written here, but the exact literal definition given in this way
(which is C-B's definition) is erroneous!

There is no science that can possibly work in *absolute* deprivation
of the above senses, which is what that definition confer.

Lets argue that we can have someone deprived from ALL senses
whatsoever from the starting moment of his mental development, and
lets say we'll cut him from ALL informational input From others that
is dependent on their senses, and lets say that we can even cut any
possible INNATE information transcended to him via his genome from his
ancestors. Now suppose he in his thoughts managed to possess some
mathematical thinking! then would that be like the one we are
accustomed to??? Greatly doubtful ha!

Of course that was a hypothetical experiment, but it does outline one
principle that mathematics though analytic yet still analytic facts
does depend on some basic sensory input, namely that necessary to
sense (read,hear or touch) the statements, and those necessary also to
understand the basic rules of the game, and thus understand those
statements in their light.

Truly mathematics do not depend on the five senses as with empirical
sciences but the point at which it deviates from them must be outlined
correctly!! and not just give an absolute utterance like the one made
by C-B here.

The correct statement is the one I supplied in the head post, where I
defined Analytic statements by those that do not need * additional*
observation (senses based) other than that necessary to perceive
(read, hear or touch) the statements themselves and recognize its
structure in relevance to rules of the game let beforehand (which must
be also memorized from prior perceived (read, heard or touched) stuff
outlining those rules)) and thus understand it in its vein. To sum it
up, an analytic statement is one that doesn't require using the senses
beyond basic use of them needed to perceive those statements and
understand them. And I supplied the examples in the head post.


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.