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: Torkel Franzen argues
Replies: 25   Last Post: May 17, 2013 3:52 PM

Advanced Search

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

Posts: 2,166
Registered: 10/4/10
Re: Torkel Franzen argues
Posted: May 15, 2013 1:21 PM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

Nam Nguyen wrote:
> On 08/05/2013 8:11 AM, Nam Nguyen wrote:
>> On 08/05/2013 7:28 AM, Frederick Williams wrote:
>>> Nam Nguyen wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 05/05/2013 8:45 AM, Frederick Williams wrote:

>>>>> Nam Nguyen wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 04/05/2013 10:07 AM, Frederick Williams wrote:

>>>>>>> Nam Nguyen wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 26/04/2013 11:09 AM, Nam Nguyen wrote:

>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 2013-04-25, FredJeffries <fredjeffries@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Now PA has been proved consistent in ZF or NBG, but then that
>>>>>>>>>> brings the consistency of axioms for set theory.

>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Exactly right. And exactly my point.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Somewhere, somehow, a circularity or an infinite regression
>>>>>>>> of _mathematical knowledge_ will be reached,

>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> How does one reach an infinite regression?

>>>>>>
>>>>>> By claiming that the state of consistency of PA can be
>>>>>> proved _IN_ a _different formal system_ .

>>>>>
>>>>> Your notion of infinite is very modest if does not go beyond two.

>>>>
>>>> That does _not_ mean there be only two, actually.

>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> and at that point
>>>>>>>> we still have to confront with the issue of mathematical
>>>>>>>> relativity.

>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It is not the case that either we go round in a circle or we regress
>>>>>>> forever.

>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's not a refute. Of course.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (It's just an unsubstantiated claim).

>>>>>
>>>>> And yet an obviously true one. Suppose the question of the
>>>>> consistency
>>>>> of PA is raised, a party to the discussion may say 'I accept that
>>>>> PA is
>>>>> consistent and I feel no need to prove it.' No circle, no regression.

>>>>
>>>> The circularity rests with the argument on the _actual and objective_
>>>> state of consistency of PA, _not_ on the _wishful and subjective_
>>>> "acceptance" of anything.

>>>
>>> Mathematicians (like the rest of humanity) are forever accepting
>>> things. It is no big deal.
>>>

>> Verification, proving, is a big deal.
>
> For example, would you _accept_ the consistency of PA + ~cGC
> ("It is no big deal" you said)?


Not everyone shares your obsessions.

The consistency of PA may be an objective fact (or fiction), but proving
is a human activity.

>




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.