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 ]

Posts: 1,968
Registered: 12/4/12
Re: Matheology § 224
Posted: Apr 16, 2013 2:06 AM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

On 4/16/2013 12:38 AM, Nam Nguyen wrote:
> On 15/04/2013 5:38 AM, Alan Smaill wrote:
>> 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.

> They claimed that my claim about the relativity of truth of cGC
> would be in vain because like GC, we might _one day_ compute a
> counter example, hence the absolute truth value would be
> established.
> But such reasoning indirectly assumes _there is no statement_
> _that is relativistic_ hence my allegation above.


Explaining that there is a reasonable prior requirement
to accept an assertion that a statement is "relative" seems
to have fallen on deaf ears (or, in this case, blind eyes).

There is a standard that establishes such relativity.
It would involve proving the independence
of the given statement by demonstrating a model
in which it holds and a model in which it fails.

Set theory is full of such statements. The literature
involving set theory is full of "what ifs" involving
independent statements that have been assumed to
investigate results which follow from them.

The models required for your statements of "relativity"
to be admissible do not have to be constructive models
because that is not the paradigm.

The fact that you want to do something different does
not change the paradigm or the responsibilities that come
with telling people that you are following the paradigm
when you are, in fact, not.

Once again, I have not cared.

Except when I have simply lost my temper, I have tried
to indicate materials that would alleviate some of
the consternation caused by these misrepresentations.
I have also taken the time to write extensive posts
directed toward the same end.

I do not appreciate having these matters misrepresented
time and time again without apology or any attempt to
repair the situation.

I withhold repeating the comments I have concluded
with in the recent past.

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.