Re: help with Godel's

herbzet wrote:
Perhaps, as you say, the purpose of PA is not to define the
naturals, but to prove things about them. The question is
about the consistency of this proof-apparatus for natural
numbers, i.e., the existence of a model. DM says "We point
to the actual natural numbers".

I meant when doing informal mathematics we point to the "actual natural
numbers". If you want to be formal and use ZFC as your foundation for
mathematics, then you point to omega.

--
David Marcus
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: A dilemma with Z set theory
    ... set of naturals ... for some wff phi. ... the fact that some theories prove the existence of uncountable ... So by "atom," zuhair means a Quine atom. ...
    (sci.logic)
  • Re: infinity
    ... > and is expecially hung up on this "largest finite" objection to actual math. ... While TO may explicitely deny existence of a largest finite natural, ... Given the validity of the Peano postulates for the naturals, ... We will often find TO saying things that imply its existence, ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Am I a crank?
    ... That's a loop generating the naturals. ... I don't see existence of naturals as ... We use induction to prove that certain PROPERTIES hold of ... Not EVERY property of finite sets is a propery of infinite sets. ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: The modern mathematical concept of infinity is ...
    ... Yet WM implies that he agrees with Isles. ... the WM-Isles theory. ... proves the existence of only finitely many naturals, ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: help with Godels
    ... for most purposes it's easiest to suppose the naturals ... have an actual existence of some sort. ... question is the consistency of the conception of the naturals, ... But now we are into some serious philosophy beyond the ...
    (sci.logic)