Date: Jan 30, 2013 4:59 PM
Author: Virgil
Subject: Re: Matheology � 203
In article

<9acbd97c-c579-4937-b417-b19eda8b5409@n2g2000yqg.googlegroups.com>,

WM <mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:

> On 30 Jan., 12:53, fom <fomJ...@nyms.net> wrote:

> > On 1/30/2013 5:29 AM, WM wrote:

> >

> > > On 30 Jan., 12:02, fom <fomJ...@nyms.net> wrote:

> >

> > >> As for those "logical considerations," I mean that

> > >> one can develop a hierarchy of definitions that

> > >> depend on actual infinity. To say that mathematics

> > >> is "logical" is to concede to such a framework. I

> > >> do not believe that mathematics is logical at all.

> >

> > > That is a very surprising statement. Why do you think so?

> >

> > In his papers on algebraic logic, Paul Halmos made

> > the observation that logicians are concerned with

> > provability while mathematicians are concerned more

> > with falsifiability.

>

> Same is true for physicists. But I had the impression that

> mathematicians are more concerned with proving. I, as a physicist, am

> more concerned with showing counter examples.

>

> >

> > It is also the exact question discussed by Aristotle

> > when speaking of the relation between definitions and

> > identity in Topics.

> >

> > Logical identity, in the modern parlance, is ontological

> > "self-identity" arising from a combination of Russell's

> > description theory and Wittgenstein's rejection of

> > Leibniz' principle of identity of indiscernibles.

>

> Well in mathematics we can ask whether in a = a the right a can be the

> same as the left a, because both can be distinguished by their

> position.

That is due to WM's perpetually confusing the name of or pointer to an

object with the object being named or pointed to.

--