Re: article on schools of foundations of mathematics

examachine_at_gmail.com
Date: 01/23/05 

Date: 23 Jan 2005 10:51:46 -0800

I think I was trolling a bit, because I insistently asked Torkel to
explain his position but he was smart enough to avoid giving the title
away. I think it's some kind of logicism. I suspect he may be believing
in even a scholastic version of metaphysics, in which every fundamental
matter was decided by medieval doctors. Torkel has a very firm grasp of
the distinctions in traditional schools, naturally, so I suppose he
could at least affirm or deny my "accusation" of him being a logicist.
(In addition, I would like to ask him if he is a neo-scholastic) [*]

As for Chapman, it seems to be Platonism, but he probably does not even
know what Platonism is.

About Ozkuralism, it certainly does not suggest that integers can have
an infinite number of digits. What it does suggest is that all of
mathematics can be understood from a digital perspective, e.g.
computation. (That is, I think computation is a better foundation than
logic)

Regards, 

--
Eray Ozkural
[*] At least one joke that he made about Q-pins was quite accurate, so
I am finally starting to think he does understand that there are a
variety of opinions on foundational matters.