Search All of the Math Forum:

Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by NCTM or The Math Forum.

Notice: We are no longer accepting new posts, but the forums will continue to be readable.

Topic: LOGIC & MATHEMATICS
Replies: 96   Last Post: Jun 6, 2013 5:19 AM

 Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
 fom Posts: 1,968 Registered: 12/4/12
Re: LOGIC & MATHEMATICS
Posted: Jun 2, 2013 9:27 PM

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.

:-)

Date Subject Author
5/26/13 Zaljohar@gmail.com
5/26/13 namducnguyen
5/26/13 Zaljohar@gmail.com
5/26/13 namducnguyen
5/26/13 Peter Percival
5/26/13 namducnguyen
5/26/13 Peter Percival
5/26/13 namducnguyen
5/26/13 Zaljohar@gmail.com
5/28/13 Charlie-Boo
5/28/13 Charlie-Boo
5/26/13 Zaljohar@gmail.com
5/27/13 zuhair
5/27/13 fom
5/27/13 Zaljohar@gmail.com
5/27/13 fom
5/28/13 namducnguyen
5/28/13 Zaljohar@gmail.com
5/28/13 namducnguyen
5/29/13 Peter Percival
5/30/13 namducnguyen
5/30/13 Peter Percival
5/30/13 Peter Percival
5/30/13 namducnguyen
5/31/13 Peter Percival
5/30/13 Bill Taylor
5/30/13 Peter Percival
5/30/13 Zaljohar@gmail.com
5/30/13 Zaljohar@gmail.com
5/30/13 namducnguyen
5/31/13 Peter Percival
5/31/13 Zaljohar@gmail.com
5/31/13 LudovicoVan
5/31/13 fom
5/28/13 Peter Percival
5/28/13 namducnguyen
5/27/13 Charlie-Boo
5/27/13 fom
5/28/13 Charlie-Boo
5/28/13 fom
6/4/13 Charlie-Boo
6/4/13 fom
6/5/13 Zaljohar@gmail.com
5/28/13 Zaljohar@gmail.com
5/28/13 LudovicoVan
5/28/13 ross.finlayson@gmail.com
5/28/13 LudovicoVan
5/28/13 LudovicoVan
5/28/13 fom
5/29/13 LudovicoVan
5/29/13 fom
5/30/13 LudovicoVan
5/29/13 fom
5/30/13 LudovicoVan
5/30/13 fom
5/31/13 LudovicoVan
5/31/13 Zaljohar@gmail.com
5/31/13 LudovicoVan
5/31/13 ross.finlayson@gmail.com
6/1/13 LudovicoVan
6/1/13 namducnguyen
6/1/13 ross.finlayson@gmail.com
6/2/13 LudovicoVan
6/2/13 ross.finlayson@gmail.com
6/3/13 Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
6/3/13 ross.finlayson@gmail.com
6/4/13 LudovicoVan
6/4/13 namducnguyen
6/4/13 Peter Percival
6/5/13 Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
6/5/13 fom
6/6/13 Peter Percival
5/31/13 fom
6/1/13 LudovicoVan
6/1/13 fom
6/2/13 ross.finlayson@gmail.com
6/2/13 fom
6/2/13 Herman Rubin
6/2/13 fom
6/2/13 LudovicoVan
6/3/13 Herman Rubin
6/3/13 Peter Percival
6/4/13 Herman Rubin
6/4/13 Peter Percival
6/4/13 Peter Percival
6/1/13 fom
6/1/13 LudovicoVan
6/1/13 namducnguyen
6/5/13 Peter Percival
6/1/13 fom
6/2/13 LudovicoVan
6/2/13 fom
5/28/13 Zaljohar@gmail.com
5/28/13 Charlie-Boo
5/27/13 Zaljohar@gmail.com
5/28/13 Charlie-Boo
5/30/13 Zaljohar@gmail.com