On Jun 1, 5:49 pm, fom <fomJ...@nyms.net> wrote: > On 6/1/2013 9:52 AM, Julio Di Egidio wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > "fom" <fomJ...@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. > > This helps me to understand your position better. > > I cannot disagree with you. In trying to understand > foundational claims, I find myself in awe of the fact > that one might think that the presumed explanatory power > of mathematics derives from linguistic forms. On the > other hand, the philosophical considerations of something > like Russell's knowledge by acquaintance have significant > merit. Thus, the approach to logic without regard to > what mathematicians do is extremely interesting. They > are very different subjects. > > Did you feel that I had flamed Zuhair when I pointed > out that we had different senses of demarcation? I > certainly did not mean anything that way. And, if that > is his interpretation then I shall offer an apology. > > Although I do not study logic in the sense that others > do, my questions have led me to respect logic as its > own discipline. I recently posted this response > to the question "What is a proof" on math.stackexchange.com > > http://math.stackexchange.com/questions/397972/what-is-a-proof/404328... > > Although I might be wrong, I do not think it is the > typical response from someone trained in mathematics.
Hmm, "fom" as "mitch": that makes sense as of Mitch's connectives then as to fom's initial posts.