Date: Apr 6, 2013 6:34 PM Author: fom Subject: Re: Matheology § 224 On 4/6/2013 4:56 PM, Nam Nguyen wrote:

> On 06/04/2013 2:34 PM, fom wrote:

>> On 4/6/2013 11:48 AM, Nam Nguyen wrote:

>>> On 05/04/2013 12:20 AM, fom wrote:

>>>> On 4/5/2013 12:57 AM, Nam Nguyen wrote:

>>>>> On 04/04/2013 10:55 PM, fom wrote:

>>>>>>

>>>>>> Who knows what is and what is not -- even

>>>>>> in the simple realm of mathematics -- claims

>>>>>> a certain knowledge that is revealed rather

>>>>>> than discerned.

>>>>>

>>>>> So, since Godel, is the knowledge of the natural numbers

>>>>> a revealed or discerned one?

>>>>>

>>>>> Revealed by whom? Discerned from what?

>>>>>

>>>>

>>>> I thought you claimed to be a relativist. ???

>>>

>>> I am, by at least the 3rd Principle "Principle of Symmetry (of

>>> Non-Logicality)" mentioned in:

>>>

>>> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.math/msg/20bb0e7c183ae502?hl=en

>>>

>>

>> What appears to be a problem with your principle is

>> that one does not know what is and what is not provable

>> to begin with.

>

> You seem to misinterpret the principle, which is actually

> a logical one.

>

> Assuming that the formula A is neither a tautology or contradiction,

> it's impossible to conclude A or to conclude ~A from (A \/ ~A).

> Therefore it's _relative_ to your choice to choose which of A, or ~A

> be your axiom. Ditto for the dichotomy (A \/ B): it's relative to

> which of A and B you'd choose. This is in the realm of syntactical proof

> via rules of inference.

I have not misinterpreted your principle.

You are free to construct axioms and the theories

that constitute their deductive closure.

If, however, you wish to apply that freedom to an

established theory, other responsibilities arise.

First of all, it will be a different theory. To

claim that it is a corrected theory is to make a

philosophical argument that the difference between

the original theory and the corrected theory reflects

some typical expectation or standard practice of

mathematicians -- outside of foundations -- that

has not been represented in the original theory.

Second, if one is not claiming that it is a

corrected theory, then one must be clear that

it is not the standard theory. If it is not

the standard theory, then the relation to the

standard theory becomes an issue. The relativity

principle you espouse must be shown to be

applicable. It can only be applicable if it

does not interfere with the possibility of a

proof within the standard theory. This

criterion of applicability translates into

a restriction of relativity to those statements

which have been shown to be independent.

Statements are shown to be independent by

formulating a model in which the statement

is true and formulating a model in which

the statement is false.

There is nothing in these remarks that does

not respect, first and foremost, the possibility

of a syntactic proof of an unproven statement

within the standard, established axioms.