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: Matheology § 224
Replies: 13   Last Post: Apr 12, 2013 7:27 PM

Advanced Search

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

Posts: 1,103
Registered: 1/29/05
Re: Matheology § 224
Posted: Apr 8, 2013 10:30 AM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

Nam Nguyen <> writes:

> Seriously, we should begin to abandon the idea that whatever is true
> or false in the naturals can be structure theoretically proven,
> verified.
> If we don't, we'd be in _no_ better position than where Hilbert
> was with his All-mighty-formal-system, proving all arithmetic
> true formulas.
> We'd be simply change the name "All-mighty-formal-system"
> to "All-mighty-language-structure". But it's still an Incompleteness
> (of the 2nd kind) that we'd encounter: the Incompleteness of language
> structure interpretation of the abstract (non-logical) concept known
> as the natural numbers.

But it is known structure theoretically that if we have any 2 structures
that satisfy Peano axioms, then they are isomorphic: a statement
is true in one if and only if it's true in the other.

Alan Smaill

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.