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 ]
namducnguyen

Posts: 2,674
Registered: 12/13/04
Re: Torkel Franzen argues
Posted: May 5, 2013 2:26 AM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

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 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.

>>
>> 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 non-standard and, thereby, easily subject to
> criticism.


Yes. Non-standard and non-canonical is a lightning rod
to criticism. But more often than not non-standard
has its past and criticism would be gone.

--
----------------------------------------------------
There is no remainder in the mathematics of infinity.

NYOGEN SENZAKI
----------------------------------------------------



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.