In article <firstname.lastname@example.org>, email@example.com wrote:
> On Sunday, 16 June 2013 17:38:56 UTC+2, fom wrote: > > On 6/16/2013 5:47 AM, firstname.lastname@example.org wrote: > > Sorry, it is really impossible for me with my Brouwser to answer your long > text. Therefore only few points. > > >> "Eventually, most mathematicians came to accept that definability should > >> not be required, partly because the axiom of choice leads to nice results, > >> but mostly because of the difficulties that arise when one tries to make > >> notion of definability precise." (Andreas Blass) > > > >> That is a real surprise to me. Which mathematicians accepted that and > >> when? > > > > I must concede to you on this one. Tarski wrote a paper > on definability in which he made the observation that > mathematicians are not too keen on the subject. > > Definability is not a logical but a practical notion. Every child knows what > is meant.
In order for any two people to agree on definitions, they must first agree that they agree an a large numbers of undefined things, like the meanings of the words in which they will make their first definitions. majority to accept that).
> > > In my version of foundations, definability is fundamental. > > Then you should consider the fact that the definitions are a subset of a > countable set.
And that all agreed upon definitions presume prior, though often unstated, agreement on the meanings of the words and grammar of some common language.
And the meanings of the words and grammar of the language of WMytheology is not agreed to by anyone except WM himself.
Thus no one is required to accept any of WM's definitions, nor his interpretation or, more commonly, misinterpretations of anyone else's meanings.
But it is sometimes amusing to watch WM's flounderings. --