Re: Successor Axiom: on what grounds TF?

From: |-|erc (h_at_r.c)
Date: 02/07/05 

Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2005 10:13:00 +1000

"Torkel Franzen" <torkel@sm.luth.se> wrote in ...
> 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.
>

Torkel (formally Mr Dunno) has no appreciation of Reduced Instruction Sets
and their amenability to meta theories, yet he's declared himself an expert here.

the more fruit the merrier hey Tork?

Herc

Quantcast