On Sunday, October 22, 2017 at 2:10:49 AM UTC+2, burs...@gmail.com wrote: > FOL is incomplete. You cannot calculate with > it, as you would calculate with rational numbers > in arithmetic. It can even not enumerate all > truths in arithmetic, see Gödel incompletness. > > I did not talk about calculate, I am only interested > in the first step, before calculate: model difficult > notions, such as limit and consorts. Whats the > alternative to FOL? Do you propose to go on à la
The problem is not with FOL or any tool, you idiot: the problem is that just a formal dimension to mathematics or anything is *not enough* to make sense of that anything. And I would think that too should be clear enough, except that it's in fact a present day tabu, to just think about it.
> netzweiler, and say "infinite addition", or > à la bird brain John Gabriel, claim "S=Lim S"? > > Am Samstag, 21. Oktober 2017 23:49:33 UTC+2 schrieb Julio Di Egidio: > > On Saturday, October 21, 2017 at 11:38:01 PM UTC+2, burs...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > > > Well limit and consorts are difficult notions, more > > > in the past than today, I have the impression. Today > > > its all easy FOL definitions. > > > > I'd insist the problem is actually today's: FOL *explains* just nothing. > > That's rather an instance of the one blind reductionist paradigm: the myth > > that everything is or should be simply "calculable". And that the whole > > universe is a machine, of the stupid kind. And so on. Institutionally. > > > > Julio