Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science

From: Torkel Franzen (torkel_at_sm.luth.se)
Date: 02/05/05

  • Next message: The Sophist: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science" 
    Date: 05 Feb 2005 04:31:31 +0100

    Jason <jasonstevensNOSPAM@free.net.nz> writes:

    > So the implication, a formula which is part of the "language of ZFC", is
    > used in the proof.

      No, there is no formula in the language of ZFC used in the proof.

      Your further comments turn on the existence of derivations in ZFC of
    formalizations of the theorems of mathematics. This is a different
    matter. The simple observation at issue is that ordinary mathematical
    proofs are not formal derivations in ZFC and in fact are nothing like
    formal derivations in ZFC.

  • Next message: The Sophist: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"

    Relevant Pages