Drexel dragonThe Math ForumDonate to the Math Forum



Search All of the Math Forum:

Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by Drexel University or The Math Forum.


Math Forum » Discussions » sci.math.* » sci.math.independent

Topic: Interpreting ZFC
Replies: 14   Last Post: Apr 30, 2013 3:45 PM

Advanced Search

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List Jump to Tree View Jump to Tree View   Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
me 154934

Posts: 32
Registered: 10/1/12
Re: Interpreting ZFC
Posted: Apr 29, 2013 10:47 PM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

On Apr 30, 3:29 am, Graham Cooper <grahamcoop...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 29, 1:30 pm, fom <fomJ...@nyms.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

> > On 4/28/2013 9:36 PM, Graham Cooper wrote:
>
> > > the problem with mereology is it uses ALL(S) quantifier
> > > and C (subset) to co-define each other..

>
> > That is a nice observation Herc.
>
> > The only problem is that the foundational
> > investigations for mathematics have a historical
> > context.

>
> > What is correct about mereology is that it is
> > consistent with Leibniz.  In analyzing the notion
> > of class, Lesniewski concluded that the existential
> > import of a class and its constituents is
> > simultaneous.  In describing the difference, he
> > explained the notion as intensional and contrasted
> > it with the extensional logic of a Fregean or a
> > Russellian approach.

>
> > In like fashion, Leibniz contrasted his notion
> > of logic with the extensional Scholastic logic.
> > In this respect Leibniz' logic is also intensional
> > for a different reason.  In Leibniz' case, the sense
> > of the syllogistic hierarchy had been characterized
> > by informational complexity.  In other words, a genus
> > is part of a species because more information is needed
> > to specify a species than that of the genus with which
> > it is associated.

>
> > It is an unfortunate fact that most of modern
> > foundational mathematics is overly influenced by
> > Russell without questioning Russell's philosophy.

>
> > For what this is worth, Cantor rejected the "extension
> > of a concept" formulation used by Frege and Russell.
> > In fact, Cantor's notion of sets involves a "theory
> > of ones" approach which suggests a Leibnizian view
> > of individuation.

>
> > I would argue that the problem with the received
> > paradigm is that the sign of equality is improperly
> > characterized.  Leibniz' original introduction of
> > the principle of identity of indiscernibles involves
> > geometric intuitions not represented in the logicist
> > framework of Frege and Russell.

>
> > Your criticism of mereology will be believed by those
> > who have not pursued what the original sources have
> > written.  And, it will be respected by me because of
> > its insight.  It is, however, a statement that does
> > not question the alternative which is equally nonsensical.

>
> > Analytical philosophy is based on one thing -- avoid epistemology
> > at all costs.  When one denies that position, there are
> > not many choices,

>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%BCnchhausen_Trilemma
>
> TODAY!
>
> Ponytail stunt ends in death
> A daredevil stuntman has died while attempting to cross a river using
> just his ponytail.
>
> http://au.news.yahoo.com/queensland/a/-/world/16933347/Ponytail-stunt...
>
> That answers that question!
>
> Herc
> --
> www.,BLoCKPROLOG.com


I am actually a different species, you guys are racists amongst each
other! you know what that means



Point your RSS reader here for a feed of the latest messages in this topic.

[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]

© Drexel University 1994-2014. All Rights Reserved.
The Math Forum is a research and educational enterprise of the Drexel University School of Education.