Re: Successor Axiom: on what grounds TF?
From: Torkel Franzen (torkel_at_sm.luth.se)
Date: 02/06/05
- Next message: ken quirici: "Re: and who made god?"
- Previous message: Helene.Boucher_at_wanadoo.fr: "Re: Successor Axiom: on what grounds TF?"
- In reply to: Helene.Boucher_at_wanadoo.fr: "Re: Successor Axiom: on what grounds TF?"
- Next in thread: |-|erc: "Re: Successor Axiom: on what grounds TF?"
- Reply: |-|erc: "Re: Successor Axiom: on what grounds TF?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 06 Feb 2005 16:18:26 +0100
Helene.Boucher@wanadoo.fr writes:
> But ideally one would like to produce a division of theorems into two, A
> (those which don't need the SA axiom) and B (those which are equivalent
> to the SA over the base theory), where the A theories are the only ones
> which are necessary for science or for use in the real world.
Such eccentric ambitions are of course perfectly legitimate, but
unlikely to have any impact on mathematics.
- Next message: ken quirici: "Re: and who made god?"
- Previous message: Helene.Boucher_at_wanadoo.fr: "Re: Successor Axiom: on what grounds TF?"
- In reply to: Helene.Boucher_at_wanadoo.fr: "Re: Successor Axiom: on what grounds TF?"
- Next in thread: |-|erc: "Re: Successor Axiom: on what grounds TF?"
- Reply: |-|erc: "Re: Successor Axiom: on what grounds TF?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|