Re: what makes it true?
- From: Torkel Franzen <torkel@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 08 Sep 2005 21:04:36 +0200
grubb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Daniel Grubb) writes:
> I can understand, given a formal system, whether I have a well formed
> formula, a proof, etc because I can apply whatever rules are given
> for forming formulae or for deriving new strings from the ones already
> obtained. However, without a set theory, I can't talk about the set of
> statements or prove anything about proofs. So my understanding of
> formal systems would be purely local if not for some type of set theory.
All of this sounds very strange. I don't see how it relates to
anything that actually happens. To begin with, what do you mean by
being given a formal system? In the real world, this means being
given such explanations as "A->(B->A) is an axiom for all formulas
A and B". We understand such explanations perfectly well without
any set theory whatsoever, and I can't imagine by which procedure
one would first introduce a set theory and then somehow use that
set theory to elucidate the explanation.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: what makes it true?
- From: Daniel Grubb
- Re: what makes it true?
- References:
- what makes it true?
- From: lhlhsand
- Re: what makes it true?
- From:
- Re: what makes it true?
- From: Timothy Little
- Re: what makes it true?
- From:
- Re: what makes it true?
- From: Timothy Little
- Re: what makes it true?
- From: Torkel Franzen
- Re: what makes it true?
- From: Timothy Little
- Re: what makes it true?
- From: Torkel Franzen
- Re: what makes it true?
- From: Daniel Grubb
- Re: what makes it true?
- From: Torkel Franzen
- Re: what makes it true?
- From: Daniel Grubb
- Re: what makes it true?
- From: Daniel Grubb
- what makes it true?
- Prev by Date: Re: Bring Math Arguments against this FERMAT LAST THEOREM PROOF
- Next by Date: Re: what makes it true?
- Previous by thread: Re: what makes it true?
- Next by thread: Re: what makes it true?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|