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: Torkel Franzen argues
Replies: 25   Last Post: May 17, 2013 3:52 PM

Advanced Search

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

Posts: 1,969
Registered: 12/4/12
Re: Torkel Franzen argues
Posted: May 4, 2013 8:04 PM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

On 5/4/2013 11:07 AM, Frederick Williams wrote:
> Nam Nguyen wrote:
>>
>> On 26/04/2013 11:09 AM, Nam Nguyen wrote:

>
>>> On 2013-04-25, 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?
>

>> 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.


Out of curiosity, how do you come to that conclusion? I have
come to the exact opposite conclusion. The only sense I can
make of foundations is that it is more like a jigsaw puzzle
that must address circularity and regress directly and with
the objective of making it harmless.





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.