Re: Existence of mathematical entities (Re: Successor Axiom: on what grounds TF?)

From: George Greene (greeneg_at_quartet.cs.unc.edu)
Date: 02/22/05 

Date: 22 Feb 2005 15:36:23 -0500

"mitch" <aatuckpointingNOSPAM@sbcglobal.net> writes:
 : Halmos' work is not some nonsense invoking categorial errors as modern
 : advocates of first-order predicate logic seem to think.

That is just a blatant lie.

"Modern advocates of first-order predicate logic"
is an empty class. First-order predicate logic just
is what it is; it doesn't NEED to be "advocated" for,
any more than "arithmetic" needs to be "advocated for".

More to the point, even if there "were" a bunch of modern
"advocates" of classical first-order predicate logic, they
would not be homogeneous enough in their opinions about
Halmos' work as to be uniformly dismissing it as
"invoking categorial errors" (whatever the *** THAT means).

There is a right and a wrong way to do this, and the right
way involves QUOTING somebody disagreeing with Halmos on
the grounds that Halmos is doing something that is somehow
incompatible with classical first-order logic.

No, we are not holding our breath.

Quantcast