Re: Implementable Set Theory and Consistency of ZFC

Han de Bruijn <Han.deBruijn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

Jesse F. Hughes wrote:

Han de Bruijn <Han.deBruijn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

That's a good point. Indeed, I consider a computer language as a
formal language par excellence, because there is no question about
whether it could be mechanized. It _has been_ mechanized. Better
than logicism.
You really should look up that word.

Oh yeah, you might think that logicism has been overcome, but it's still
_there_, in it's mainstream disguise, called Formalism, Hilbert's lovely
baby. People think that constructivism is just Hilbertianism without the
excluded middle. What a terrible mistake. It's a different kind of get a
_life_ in mathematics!

Formalism is not logicism. It is, in fact, a rival theory quite
distinct from logicism.

A formalist does not believe that all of mathematics reduces to purely
logical principles (without the need for non-logical axioms).

You are quite simply mistaken. The two are similar in only one
respect: they both emphasis the importance of logic in mathematics.

--
"Civilizations have risen and crumbled as my people fight your people,
and still it remains the same old battle. I come from a line that
mostly walks alone, fighting for the truth against people [like you],
but my people always win." -- James S. Harris
.

Relevant Pages