Re: Set Theory: Should You Believe
- From: herbzet@xxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 05 Jul 2006 15:17:08 -0400
John Jones wrote:
The fact that mathematicians are unable and unwilling to translate
their tasks into common discourse leads one to believe either that the
foundations of mathematics are suspect, or that 'foundations' in
mathematics are not originary, simple and conceivable acts and
properties but fix-its enmeshed in the body of the mathematical
integrated text.
Even non-mathematicians can glean enough from the cracks between the
extensive symbology of mathematics to recognise conceptual
inconsistency. Set theory is rich with inconsistency which the
mathematician, high up in the branches, fails to see. It is doubtful
whether the mathematician has the skills to deal with mathematics at
the very deepest foundational levels, such skills generally being the
province of the philosopher.
But the problem is not confined to mathematics: The integral texts of
mathematics (the vast integrated, linked structure built from
formalism, author and argument in which mathematics is stored as a body
of knowledge) can, when the discipline is in crisis, be mandated upon
argument and theory, stifling authentic debate and creating divides and
allegiances. The phenomena occurs in any scholastic text.
quote source if used
Infinity is a tough nut to crack.
--
hz
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Set Theory: Should You Believe
- From: John Jones
- Re: Set Theory: Should You Believe
- References:
- Re: Set Theory: Should You Believe
- From: John Jones
- Re: Set Theory: Should You Believe
- Prev by Date: Re: PC(1): An introductory formal logic
- Next by Date: Re: proof of undecidability of halting problem
- Previous by thread: Re: Set Theory: Should You Believe
- Next by thread: Re: Set Theory: Should You Believe
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|