G S Chandy >Our previous exchanges at this thread clearly indicate that the 'world of academic scholarship and convivial discussion' itself has thus far failed to "say what 'mathematics' and 'logic' may mean
This is quite absurd. This is large body of literature from the last 150 years which shows that people have not only agreed to fix the terms math and logic precisely enough to discuss, study, and draw conclusions, they've delved into incredibly precise details about exactly how, why and where logic fails to capture "classical" mathematics, and this has led to a profusion of new understandings about logical systems, formal systems, axiomatics, new sorts of restricted mathematics, etc. etc. etc.
That was the entire point of my first response to this thread.
On the other hand, when you print in all capital letters "IS INCLUDED IN", I have no idea what you mean. Do you mean set theoretical inclusion? Why not say so? Or if its not, how does it differ? As I pointed out, if you do mean something like that then the notion that logic "IS INCLUDED IN" math is quite out there on the spectrum of craziness. Why bother?
As far as I can tell ps+g doesn't even turn over, much less take off.