On 6/2/2013 3:13 PM, Ross A. Finlayson wrote: > 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. > > Mitch? >
Yes. 10 years ago I was viciously flamed by George Greene.
'fom' was chosen to make plain the focus of my statements at all times.
I had expected the same response at this time. But, the newsgroup has changed significantly, and, for the most part, I am ignored. And, that is just fine.
Although pursuing the philosophical aspects of which I had been unaware has cost me a great deal of my mathematical skills, I am grateful to George. His flaming of my posts forced me to investigate matters more fully.