
Re: Torkel Franzen argues
Posted:
May 4, 2013 1:37 PM


On 04/05/2013 10:07 AM, Frederick Williams wrote: > Nam Nguyen wrote: >> >> On 26/04/2013 11:09 AM, Nam Nguyen wrote: > >>> On 20130425, FredJeffries <fredjeffries@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> Now PA has been proved consistent in ZF or NBG, but then that >>>> brings the consistency of axioms for set theory. >> >> Exactly right. And exactly my point. >> >> Somewhere, somehow, a circularity or an infinite regression >> of _mathematical knowledge_ will be reached, > > How does one reach an infinite regression?
By claiming that the state of consistency of PA can be proved _IN_ a _different formal system_ .
> >> and at that point >> we still have to confront with the issue of mathematical relativity. > > It is not the case that either we go round in a circle or we regress > forever.
That's not a refute. Of course.
(It's just an unsubstantiated claim).
> >> There's really no escape to it, I'm afraid from what I could gather. >
  There is no remainder in the mathematics of infinity.
NYOGEN SENZAKI 

