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: 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 ]

Posts: 1,968
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 <> 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]

© The Math Forum at NCTM 1994-2018. All Rights Reserved.