Re: Zenkin's paper on Cantor (reply of Dr. Zenkin)

From: Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz (spamtrap_at_library.lspace.org.invalid)
Date: 11/23/04 

Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2004 20:00:15 -0500

In <320e992a.0411190953.21ab8c4c@posting.google.com>, on 11/19/2004
   at 09:53 AM, examachine@gmail.com (Eray Ozkural exa) said:

>But you left out the MOST important part of my sentence above.

No.

>:Hmmm. That sounds like a good piece of philosophy of mathematics from
>:19th century, but I will not accept any proof that is not a formal
>:axiomatic system, or can be in principle shown to be one!

I repeat, a proof is not a formal axiomatic system. A formal axiomatic
system is the framework in which a proof is expressed.

>If you have a proof that cannot be *in principle* reduced to a
>logical derivation

How is that relevant? A logical derivation is not a formal axiomatic
system, any more than a pint of oil is a gas station.

>Do you understand this or not?

Better than you, it would appear, because the derivation is possible
only after stipulating the formal axiomatic system. 

-- 
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT  <http://patriot.net/~shmuel>
Unsolicited bulk E-mail subject to legal action.  I reserve the
right to publicly post or ridicule any abusive E-mail.  Reply to
domain Patriot dot net user shmuel+news to contact me.  Do not
reply to spamtrap@library.lspace.org