Drexel dragonThe Math ForumDonate to the Math Forum



Search All of the Math Forum:

Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by Drexel University or The Math Forum.


Math Forum » Discussions » sci.math.* » sci.math.independent

Topic: Matheology § 179
Replies: 4   Last Post: Dec 13, 2012 3:29 PM

Advanced Search

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List Jump to Tree View Jump to Tree View   Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de

Posts: 14,735
Registered: 1/29/05
Re: Matheology § 179
Posted: Dec 13, 2012 8:03 AM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

On 13 Dez., 10:22, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote:
> In article
> <055bfb01-cdd0-4df2-a0bb-117e2dc52...@gu9g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
>
>
>
>
>
>  WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:

> > Matheology § 179
>
> > The great fascination that contemporary mathematical logic has for its
> > devotees is due, in large measure, to the ever increasing
> > sophistication of its techniques rather than to any definitive
> > contribution to our understanding of the foundations of mathematics.
> > Nevertheless, the achievements of logic in recent years are relevant
> > to foundational questions and it behooves the logician, at least once
> > in a while, to reflect on the basic nature of his subject and perhaps
> > even to report his conclusions. In an address given some years ago the
> > present writer stated a point of view on the foundations of
> > mathematics which may be summed up as follows. (1) Infinite totalities
> > do not exist and any purported reference to them is, literally,
> > meaningless; (2) this should not prevent us from developing
> > mathematics in the classical vein involving the free use of infinitary
> > concepts; and (3) although an infinitary framework such as set theory,
> > or even only Peano number theory cannot be regarded as the ultimate
> > foundation for mathematics, it appears that we have to accept at least
> > a rudimentary form of logic and arithmetic as common to all
> > mathematical reasoning.
> > [A. Robinson: "From a formalist's point of view", Dialectica 23 (1969)
> > 45-49]
> >http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1746-8361.1969.tb01177.x...
> > ?

>
> Considering Robinson's use of infinity and infinite sets in his
> Nonstandard Analysis, one  should not take his objections to infinite
> sets and infinite totalities very seriously.
>
> Note points 2  "this should not prevent us from developing mathematics
> in the classical vein involving the free use of infinitary concepts"
>
> So that WM here has cited a obvious proponent of all WM objects to re
> "infinitary concepts".


You are in error. I quote and support Robinson's standpoint in all my
books.
https://portal.dnb.de/opac.htm;jsessionid=206ED1BB2341642E4152416386313FA5.prod-worker4?query=Wolfgang+M%C3%BCckenheim&method=simpleSearch

Regards, WM



Point your RSS reader here for a feed of the latest messages in this topic.

[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]

© Drexel University 1994-2014. All Rights Reserved.
The Math Forum is a research and educational enterprise of the Drexel University School of Education.