Re: kung fu mereotopology

On Dec 22, 12:06 pm, David R Tribble <da...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
galathaea wrote:
you have learned this view from certain sources
  which you hold as authorities on the usage of this term
but
" just because someone has said it
  doesn't mean everyone must obey them as authority "

your rigid worldview prevents
you from seeing
that those who said sets obey a given structure
  well they were just people
like all of us
  and often wrong or one-sided or in other ways flawed

Yes, people can be flawed. But if the logic they present is not
flawed, how is it pertinent that they are only human?

MoeBlee wrote:
I've always considered that even the greatest logicians and set
theorists are fallible and that their broad perspective may be doubted
or challenged at any time.

Sure, assuming that there is some flaw or inconsistency in their
logic somewhere to be challenged. Otherwise, we can assume that
their theorems are correct, regardless of how flawed they may be
as human beings.

Though perhaps I was not explicit enough, I wasn't referring to
mathematical proofs, but rather to, as I said, broad perspectives.

As long as their ideas are logically consistent,
how does it matter that those ideas sprang from less-than-perfect
human beings?

I wasn't referring to their "human flaws" (in the sense of their
beliefs outside of logic and mathematics and their personal behavior),
but rather to their broad perspective of logic and mathematics,
whether a definite philosophy or just a way of looking at things. My
point being that whether or not any given logician or mathematician
has a flawed perspective about logic and mathematics, at least such
perspectives (ways of thought, philosophies, etc.) are subject to
doubt and/or challenge.

As to mathematical proofs, of course I agree with the notion that a
mathematical proof is relative to the system in which it is given and
that if, in an informal exposition of a proof, no error or non
sequitur is to be found in the application of the axioms and rules of
that system, then the exposition should be accepted as of, indeed, a
proof; and that, meanwhile, fully formalized proofs are machine-
checkable (or, when practical, subject to hand calculation), given the
notion of formal proof as from a recursive set of axioms and recursive
rules of inference.

MoeBlee

.

Relevant Pages