Search All of the Math Forum:
Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by
Drexel University or The Math Forum.


fom
Posts:
1,968
Registered:
12/4/12


Re: Interpreting ZFC
Posted:
Apr 30, 2013 12:02 AM


On 4/29/2013 9:29 PM, Graham Cooper 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 codefine 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/PonytailstuntmanSailendraNathRoydiesziplineIndia/ > > > That answers that question! >
No question had been posed.
But, I like the ad lib. Feel sorry for the guy, though.



