Date: Apr 7, 2013 2:32 PM
Author: namducnguyen
Subject: Re: Matheology § 224
On 07/04/2013 11:52 AM, Frederick Williams wrote:

> Nam Nguyen wrote:

>

>> Mathematical logic is about _conforming_ with the _rigorousness_

>> of standard _definitions_ .

>

> So your, um, "contributions" to mathematical logic will be rigorous and

> will conform to standard definitions, will they?

I don't have any reason otherwise. (Btw, by "standard definitions"

it's not necessarily meant an author's specific wordings of choice,

you'd agree. No?)

>

>> _Godel's work_ is an piece of an _informal intuition_ hence should

>> not be included as part of the rigorous Mathematical logic reasoning.

>

> In my mind's eye I see teachers of mathematical logic busily revising

> their lecture notes by tearing them up and owners of bookshops throwing

> whole shelves of books in skips...

I wouldn't go that far; we're still discussing, evaluating, the

technical matters.

Whether or not in the future mathematical relativity is a successful

or failed notion we don't know for sure now. But I'd imagine life

must have gone on as normal when some physics books were re-written

after 1905. Life is what it is, I guess.

--

----------------------------------------------------

There is no remainder in the mathematics of infinity.

NYOGEN SENZAKI

----------------------------------------------------