"fom" <fomJUNK@nyms.net> wrote in message news:9bWdnVL04P_k_DTMnZ2dnUVZ_t6dnZ2d@giganews.com... > On 5/31/2013 10:36 AM, Julio Di Egidio wrote: > >> Isn't indeed self-referentiality >> (circularity) the essential character of the (any) purely logical >> system? > > My answer to that is yes. > > I have done a great deal of work to understand how modern mathematical > logic has reached the point where its foundations are almost > exclusively focused on non-circularity. So, while you see this > condition as a matter of fact, such a claim in the mathematics > community may get you some metaphorical version of tar and feathers.
My point was that mathematical logic is not logic, it's mathematics: it's an abuse of language. Then I don't see why the mathematician should flame the logician for a claim on logic, all the more so when the logician in question is saying that mathematics cannot be reduced to logic in any meaningful sense (and vice versa). In simpler terms, what I can see in the logistic approach is, firstly reduce all endeavours to mechanics, then call mathematics logic, finally assert that all derives from logic.
> I apologize for a long post.
It'll take me some time to go through it, but I rather thank you.