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: 6   Last Post: Apr 16, 2013 2:55 AM

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 15, 2013 7:38 AM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

Nam Nguyen <> writes:

> My presentation over the years is that it does _not_ matter
> what, say, Nam, fom, Frederick, Peter, ... would do to
> "specify an infinite domain", including IP (Induction Principle),
> a cost will be exacted on the ability to claim we know, verify,
> or otherwise prove, in FOL level or in metalogic level.
> The opponents of the presentation seem to believe that with IP
> we could go as far as proving/disproving anything assertion,
> except it would be just a matter of time.

I haven't seen anyone claim that, and I certainly don't.

You are the one making claims of impossibility for particular

> Which sounds like
> Hilbert's false paradigm of a different kind.
> That's the difference on the two sides.

Whatever you think the "two sides" are, you misrepresent
some posters here.

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.