
Re: Torkel Franzen argues
Posted:
May 5, 2013 2:26 AM


On 05/05/2013 12:20 AM, fom wrote: > On 5/5/2013 12:52 AM, Nam Nguyen wrote: >> On 04/05/2013 6:04 PM, fom wrote: >>> On 5/4/2013 11:07 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? >>>> >>>>> 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. >> >> I couldn't agree less; and that is exactly what I've proposed >> for the past years. >> > > Well, I will not dispute your opinions. > > I simply know what I have done and how it fits > in with established literature. I also know how > it is nonstandard and, thereby, easily subject to > criticism.
Yes. Nonstandard and noncanonical is a lightning rod to criticism. But more often than not nonstandard has its past and criticism would be gone.
  There is no remainder in the mathematics of infinity.
NYOGEN SENZAKI 

