Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science
From: Jason (jasonstevensNOSPAM_at_free.net.nz)
Date: 02/02/05
- Next message: CWatters: "Re: Record low temperatures over the North Pole"
- Previous message: slavek krepelka: "Re: FREE ENERGY Devices and Technology"
- In reply to: Torkel Franzen: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Next in thread: Torkel Franzen: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Reply: Torkel Franzen: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Reply: Neil W Rickert: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2005 21:15:27 +1300
> > Most of maths is built from sets, so the basic assumptions of maths
> > are the axioms of set theory, in particular ZFC set theory. [Chapter Zero -
> > Fundamental Notions of Abstract Mathematics, Carol Schumacher]
>
> However, after Chapter Zero, nobody cares about the axioms of ZFC,
> let alone about the rules of predicate logic.
>
> This is not to say that ZFC does not play an important role in
> contemporary mathematics.
Mathematical proofs are in the form of logical deduction. Does nobody care
about proofs all of a sudden?
- Next message: CWatters: "Re: Record low temperatures over the North Pole"
- Previous message: slavek krepelka: "Re: FREE ENERGY Devices and Technology"
- In reply to: Torkel Franzen: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Next in thread: Torkel Franzen: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Reply: Torkel Franzen: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Reply: Neil W Rickert: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
