Date: Feb 21, 2013 8:51 PM
Author: fom
Subject: Re: when indecomposability is decomposable

On 2/21/2013 3:01 AM, Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz wrote:
> In <yfGdnVH3XuwxeLnMnZ2dnUVZ_uWdnZ2d@giganews.com>, on 02/20/2013
> at 09:03 AM, fom <fomJUNK@nyms.net> said:
>

>> The validity of the inference being justified by
>> what stance?

>
> The axioms and the rules of inference.
>

>> A number of years ago, there was a John Correy on these newsgroups
>> who formulated a set of axioms that could be syntactically
>> manipulated to "prove" the existence of non-self-identicals.

>
> Within his theory.
>

>> He had been hammered on the basis of the ontological import
>> of x=x.

>
> Ontology is irrelevant. What matters is whether his work was
> consistent and interesting.
>
> BTW, there was a serious shift in how mathematicians viewed
> foundational issues after, e.g., Gödel, Cohen.
>


Yes. I know.