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 § 193
Replies: 1   Last Post: Jan 19, 2013 1:08 PM

Advanced Search

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List Jump to Tree View Jump to Tree View   Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
Virgil

Posts: 7,030
Registered: 1/6/11
Re: WMatheology � 193
Posted: Jan 19, 2013 1:08 PM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

In article
<0499af55-1b53-4314-b18a-8500fcfb2ece@ho8g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
WM <mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:

> Matheology § 193
>
>
> {{In 1927 David Hilbert gave a talk at Hamburg university, where he
> explained his opinions about the foundations of mathematics.}} It is a
> great honour and at the same time a necessity for me to round out and
> develop my thoughts on the foundations of mathematics, which was
> expounded here one day five years ago and which since then have constantly kept me most actively
> occupied. With this new way of providing a foundation for mathematics,
> which we may appropriately call a proof theory, I pursue a significant
> goal, for I should like to eliminate once and for all the questions
> regarding the foundations of mathematics [...]
> I have already set forth the basic features of this proof theory of
> mine on different occasions, in Copenhagen [1922], here in Hamburg
> [1922], in Leipzig [1922], and in Münster [1925]; in the meantime much
> fault has been found with it, and objections of all kinds have been
> raised against it, all of which I consider just as unfair as it can
> be. [...]
> Poincaré already made various statements that conflict with my
> views; above all, he denied from the outset the possibility of a
> consistency proof for the arithmetic axioms, maintaining that the
> consistency of the method of mathematical induction could never be
> proved except through the inductive method itself. [...] Regrettably
> Poincaré, the mathematician who in his generation was the richest in
> ideas and the most fertile, had a decided prejudice against Cantor's
> theory, which prevented him from forming a just opinion of Cantor's
> magnificent conceptions. Under these circumstances Poincaré had to
> reject my theory, which, incidentally, existed at that time only in
> its completely inadequate early stages. Because of his authority,
> Poincaré often exerted a one-sided influence on the younger
> generation. I cannot for the most part agree with
> their tendency; I feel, rather, that they are to a large extent behind
> the times, as if they came from a period when Cantor's majestic world
> of ideas had not yet been discovered.
> [E. Artin et al. (eds.): "D. Hilbert: Die Grundlagen der
> Mathematik" (1927). Abh. Math. Seminar Univ. Hamburg, vol. 6, Teubner,
> Leipzig (1928) 65-85. English translation: J. van Heijenoort: "From
> Frege to Gödel", Harvard Univ. Press, Cambridge, Mass. (1967) 464-479]


Poison deleted!
--





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.