Re: On the foundations (of logic and arithmetic)

From: ZZBunker (zzbunker_at_netscape.net)
Date: 09/09/04 

Date: 8 Sep 2004 17:31:13 -0700

tmyslowski@wp.pl (Tomek) wrote in message news:<e7b47f41.0409080520.68185020@posting.google.com>...
> Hello,
> In his seminal paper Hilbert says:
>
> "[...] We take as a basis of our considerations
> the first thought object 1 (one). We call what
> we obtain by [putting together] two, three, or more
> of this object, for example
>
> 11, 111, 1111
>
> combinations [Kombinationen] of the object 1 with
> itself. These combinations, such as
>
> (1)(11), (11)(11)(11), ((11)(11))(11), ((111)(1))(1)
>
> are again called combinations of object 1 with
> itself.
>
> The combinations are likewise just called objects,
> and then, to distinguish it, object 1 is called
> a simple object. [...]"
>
> No, I am not going to be a nuisance and ask question
> after question (I'd rather die). The passage I quoted, however,
> _touches_ upon a very delicate issue, which I
> most certainly cannot expect myself to work out
> on my own vis. [putting together] of geometric
> figures (of symbols) as the principal act of
>
> BRINGING MATHEMATICAL OBJECTS INTO EXISTENCE.
>
> Please, does Hilbert himself, or some other genius,
> discuss this most profound ontological and epistemological
> issue in ALL DETAILS.

  The only detail Hilbert ever gave about anything
  concerning Philosophy or Logic, was that
  last century was the 19th Century, and this is
  now the 20th Century. So iff you accept
  European Modernism as Ontology and Epistemology,
  he described both in infinite detail.
  He founded his own private school of mathematics,
  later called both Maths and Ultra-Positivism.
  Based entirely on ONE Theorem:
  
  Cantor's list|~list Theorem.

>
> Thank you.
>
> Tom